This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

United States (P) was wire-taping Saucedo who just happened to be D's cocaine supplier. P heard Saucedo tell Rodriguez (Saucedo's admitted co-conspirator) that 'Dude' would be coming to a particular house in 15 minutes to pick up drugs that 'Dude' had ordered. Fifteen minutes later, officers saw a man enter the location and emerge shortly afterward. The officers arrested D who was the man called 'Dude' and who just purchased cocaine. The evidence of his guilt was that the 'D regularly obtained distribution quantities of cocaine from Saucedo and Rodriguez. . . . The dealings between . . . [D and Saucedo, with whom alone D dealt] were standardized and exhibited mutual trust. Saucedo and Rodriguez had a stake in D's distribution activities as well as their ongoing arrangement, given that their profits depended on the success of D's distribution efforts. . . . [D and Saucedo] conducted regular, standardized transactions through which D obtained cocaine in quantities of either 4.5 or 9 ounces at consistent prices, and distributed it to customers. D and Saucedo regularly arranged deliveries by telephone,' with defendant being the caller, using Saucedo's cellphone number. D was convicted of possession with intent to distribute, conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, and aiding and abetting a conspiracy. D appealed in part that there was insufficient evidence to show he participated in the conspiracy or aided and abetted the conspiracy.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.