the final case on for argument days united states versus faulty good morning your honour's may it please the court oh i guess at the afternoon probably by now right i don't i don't have a watch on your side three minutes last but not least six and last but not least my name is julian harrington and i was assigned by this court along with martin segal to represent clyde fall teen on this direct appeal i did not represent mr fall teen in the district court below as the court is of course aware we presented two issues for review by the court the first issue that i'd like to address today is whether mr felt his conviction of the conspiracy charge was sufficient to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to sum up this argument in one sentence maybe two since lawyers are not prone to speaking in one sen but based on the record that's before this court that was in the district court the government failed to present sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that mr fuld team was a member of the narcotics conspiracy that was alleged here what they did prove if anything is that there was this narcotics conspiracy that was dealing in cocaine and marijuana and i believe there was some allegations of crack that didn't come in to this case what they do prove anything is that mr faulty gene was a buyer or a customer but where they fell short was in proving that apart from being a customer that he was an actual member of the alleged each other they had a longstanding relationship where there were a lot of drugs being sold and purchased how was that sufficient to meet that rock issue i kind of well answer yes yes yes yes those are all that is all evidence that was presented by the government in this case but where the government fell short was in establishing that that mr faulty and apart from being a customer that he assisted in the  operation or in the organization and all the evidence proved was that yes he was all of those things could be we could argue and we do argue that all of those things reflect the fact that he was a customer a good which is slightly different but that there is a conspiracy in which that at least involves the voice and gonzalez and your client to sell that that your client will be selling drugs and they're going to be basically helping him by doing things like giving him the drugs on consignment and giving him extending credit being understanding when he comes up short with cash and so felting succeed in selling drugs isn't it yes your honor but it is an argument can be made that that's the case in any buyer seller relationship or not if the buyer is a user for example rather than a forward seller not if the buyer is someone who on one occasion buys from this supplier but also buys from another supplier another supplier and doesn't have any ongoing relationship with anybody we don't know for certain that there was no i'm sorry to have turning point is and he and he may have other employee with a badge that says i work for mcdonald's or i was in so long as you have this joint relationship to make the business prosper yes and no although i agree with you that a mutual trust had obviously developed which led to the consignment arrangement that they had i think there are other factors that we can point to to show that he wasn't part of the organization maybe but isn't that what makes it with banks or jury question whether there's a conspiracy or not the jury couldn't for one thing or for something else yes but the reason that we're here is that we say that the inferences that they made were not founded upon the evidence that was presented by the government and as your honor side your honor makes the argument as i said the district court made the same argument that there was some reciprocity here which which really brings mr fall teen into the organization and we would argue that that's not true mr was in had a product to sell faulty and purchased that product whether he used to himself or whether he turned around and sold it to other people does it matter did was in because was he in but why is he was selling it to him one way or the other you know no it's not because it wouldn't make any sense that that would be true if it was  a small quantity but obviously he's not selling this for personal use and if it were for personal use it wouldn't be it would make any sense this is a this is the arrangement is that there are there a benefits by furthering the the sale that's the order in brock he didn't he didn't buy all of that for personal use he there is some argument in brock that some of it was for personal use and the rest of it he was selling and he was getting it from multiple people and multiple people within that same organization brock was purchasing a dickerson and i believe is the defendant who was actually in that case so in this case i think we have a situation where we have a seller and we have a buyer and  which is not of course exactly relevant to the merits here but as i understand it you're only challenging the conspiracy yes so one way or the other he's going to spend three years in jail on the substantive count yes your honor yes your honor i didn't feel that it was dickerson was purchasing from several different people inside and outside of that organization and i don't think it's appropriate in this case that just because the evidence presented by the government was that mr fall teen was only part purchasing from was and that we rely on the fact that that he was a a a willing participant in some agreement some conspiracy that they're trying to prove here to distribute these narcotics just because this was the only one that they presented evidence about doesn't mean it was the only place that he was getting those drugs and if he was producing them from was in you know you brought up everybody brought up the mutual trust situation that's something that grows over time and just because he came back to him multiple times doesn't put him inside you may not have been conspiring on the first deal you might have that argument but as it continues out over time and you get the added benefits of  wasn't it wasn't us saying all right well here's a you know you have problems handling the money and obviously i've got an interest in that money so here's a safe to keep the money safe so that you cannot lose it and get it back to me or not end up shortly after work extra hard sell more product in order to make up the difference but at the same time we can argue that if he was truly a member of the organization of the narcotics distribution conspiracy that when the drugs and that money was stolen that the would have been forgiven but instead he repaid for that anyway and a lot of these are these are symptoms of a relationship that had developed i have a nice relationship with the with the bagel store in my neighborhood it doesn't mean that i'm part of their organization there's a consignment right that there's a consignment shop in my in my town where i may bring a sweater if they sell that's right and they give me money granted it's not a controlled substance i am not now a part of their organization even if i do this many times over the years an official arrangement to sell the product you both made money off selling the product and you did it together so you may have an agreement that you would both participate in selling the sweater to the customer that's all that's required of dozens doesn't prohibit being a member of the organization and prohibits conspiring together with someone else to bring yes and the argument is that there were although they may have conspired to break the distribution or the i'm sorry b possession because mr faulty and purchased those drugs from mr of was in there is no evidence to prove that he joined into this agreement with mr of was in and or others you don't need others it could just been the two of them there is no proof that they joined together to form this agreement it was a buyer seller relationship mr was and had a product to sell mr foll teen according to the government had a need for that that product whether it was for his own use or for the sale to others and that's where we want i know that i'm over my time so i will rely on my brief very much your honors there was sufficient evidence presented at trial the jury to convict mr felt's heene in participating in a cocaine in a marijuana conspiracy contrary to the appellants contention the evidence presented at trial constituted much more than a mere buyer sell relationship this was as your honour's of pointed out a prolonged cooperation lasting from two thousand and nine to two thousand and twelve this was there was mutual trust here voicing at numerous points testified the trust a faulty in that this was a relationship those developed over time he testified that he trusted that faulty would distribute drugs in fact there was testimony from voice and that he when he would receive drugs including marijuana he would almost those drugs unfold seen as a requirement of being part of his disagreement because he needed somebody to move the marijuana not just to move the cocaine he also testified as you and your honor's point out that he provided a safe so that folks who could keep his money safe he provided advice to file teen about keeping his money safe because felt he was sometimes careless with his money these are all to protect voice and spawned interests in the drug conspiracy and there's also standardized motive dealing which is required under the law they would have the same transactions at the same locations at the same official relationship that reflects on a conspiracy here i would argue that it actually is in most cases because there has to be a trust developed in order for something to front the drugs in the first place right there has to be some understanding that you're going to get the money back because you're not i mean relationship in fact these two had a relationship outside a business relationship that had nothing to do with drugs as well so this was really a relationship where mr faulting was asking for larger quantities because he had larger holes at customers and mr boyce was actually able to provide that because his amounts had gone up so in this case i don't think it applies i don't want to speak across all cases but i think in this case it is very much the case that the actual the the on credit we're very important to the conspira of flux so there's clearly clearly that and as your honest pointed out the quantity of cocaine here mr porson estimated forty fifty kilograms conservatively because it's difficult to keep track of these types of things forty to fifty pounds of marijuana conservatively these