Caseflicks

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit • 2008

United States v. Colon

549 F.3d 565 | 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 24663

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case holds that repeated cash purchases of distribution quantities of drugs, without evidence of a shared plan to advance the supplier’s business, establish buyer-seller dealing—not conspiracy or aiding and abetting.

Background

Police monitored telephone calls involving Saucedo, a cocaine supplier, and Rodriguez, Saucedo’s admitted coconspirator. Officers heard Saucedo tell Rodriguez that “Dude” would arrive at a specified house in fifteen minutes to collect drugs he had ordered. Fifteen minutes later, after no one else had entered from the street, officers saw Colon enter the house, leave shortly afterward, and flee when they tried to stop him. They caught him and recovered cocaine he had just purchased.

A jury convicted Colon of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute, and aiding and abetting the Saucedo-Rodriguez conspiracy. The district court imposed concurrent 135-month prison sentences. Colon appealed, arguing that the cocaine should have been suppressed and that the evidence showed only a buyer-seller relationship, not conspiracy participation or aiding and abetting.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the officers had probable cause to stop Colon and seize the cocaine after he left the suspected drug house.

Holding

Yes. The timing and circumstances gave the officers probable cause to believe Colon was the specific buyer whom Saucedo had said would arrive for drugs.

Reasoning

Mere knowledge that a house is used to sell drugs does not justify stopping every person who enters it. But this was not an indiscriminate stop based solely on Colon’s presence at a suspected drug house.

Officers had intercepted Saucedo’s statement that a buyer would arrive at that particular house in fifteen minutes to pick up an order. Colon arrived precisely on that schedule, entered and exited shortly thereafter, and no other person had entered from the street during the relevant interval. Those facts supported more than a hunch that Colon was the anticipated purchaser.

Because the stop and seizure were supported by probable cause, the cocaine was properly admitted. Colon’s possession conviction therefore remained valid.

Issue #2

Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that Colon conspired with Saucedo and Rodriguez to distribute cocaine.

Holding

No. The evidence established a conventional repeat buyer-seller relationship, not an agreement to pursue the suppliers’ distribution enterprise as a joint criminal objective.

Reasoning

A drug sale necessarily involves a buyer and a seller, but that limited agreement does not itself establish conspiracy. To prove conspiracy, the government had to show an agreement to commit a crime beyond the sale itself—here, a shared objective of distributing drugs through a common venture.

Colon made six or seven cash purchases over as much as six weeks, buying quantities that he apparently resold. The purchases were regular and standardized, but repetition and standard terms are ordinary features of any continuing commercial relationship, lawful or unlawful. They do not transform a customer into a coconspirator.

The usual facts that can support an inference of a broader agreement were absent. Colon received no drugs on credit or consignment, had no stake in the suppliers’ sales to other customers, never met or spoke with Rodriguez, and did not share in the suppliers’ profits. Nor did he recruit customers, earn commissions, advise the suppliers, help build their delivery system, or protect their business from competitors or law enforcement.

The government’s claim that the suppliers had a stake in Colon’s resale activity proved too much. Every wholesaler has an economic interest in a reseller’s ability to continue buying. That ordinary interest does not demonstrate the informed, cooperative relationship required for conspiracy.

Colon’s later call reporting that he had been stopped by police did not change the analysis. The record did not show that he was warning Saucedo to help the conspiracy evade law enforcement, rather than reporting an event that could affect his own future purchases.

The jury instructions compounded the problem by highlighting resale, large quantities, standardized dealings, a continuing relationship, and the seller’s financial interest in resale without explaining why those features distinguish a customer from a conspirator. In this setting, the instructions invited the jury to treat routine wholesale buying as conspiracy.

Issue #3

Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that Colon aided and abetted the Saucedo-Rodriguez conspiracy.

Holding

No. Colon’s purchases did not show that he knowingly and purposefully provided meaningful assistance to the suppliers’ conspiracy.

Reasoning

Aiding and abetting generally requires knowing assistance to an illegal activity coupled with the purpose that the activity succeed. That general definition must be applied with attention to whether the defendant actually advanced the particular criminal enterprise.

By buying cocaine from Saucedo, Colon benefited the suppliers and presumably wanted them to remain available as a source. But the record gave no reason to think that Colon made a meaningful difference to their operation; they could have sold the relatively modest amount he bought to another customer.

Treating an ordinary purchaser as an aider and abettor merely because the purchase helps a seller would effectively make every customer of a drug conspiracy liable as a participant in the conspiracy. That result is inconsistent with the distinction between ordinary commercial dealing and purposeful assistance to an enterprise.

The court contrasted Colon’s conduct with a case involving a buyer deeply integrated into a conspiracy’s operations, including repeated visits to its headquarters, coded communications, large and irregular payment arrangements, and the provision of marijuana for use in the business. Nothing comparable linked Colon to the Saucedo-Rodriguez operation.

Issue #4

Whether reversal of the conspiracy-related convictions required resentencing despite Colon’s concurrent sentences for possession and the other counts.

Holding

Yes. The conspiracy and aiding-and-abetting convictions had to be vacated, and the case remanded for resentencing.

Reasoning

Although the sentences were concurrent and fell within the same guideline range, the district judge sentenced Colon near the top of that range. The additional jury findings of conspiracy and aiding and abetting may have influenced that sentencing choice.

The court therefore affirmed the possession conviction, vacated the conspiracy and aiding-and-abetting conviction, and remanded so that Colon could be resentenced without the taint of the unsupported additional conviction.