Task: Text Completion
Input (English): that she had anything to do with the drugs other than move them down from the apartment to her car. While de la Cruz-Paulino admitted to helping carry “it” from the apartment to the car, responding to Salazar’s question, “Did you get it down?” with “Of course we did,” there is no evidence that de la Cruz-Paulino saw the packages inside the garbage bags until the time of her arrest. We see no basis for concluding that Díaz-Pérez cut de la Cruz-Paulino in on the drug transaction after soliciting her package-carrying services. Díaz-Pérez had a menial job that de la Cruz-Paulino was willing to do for $40; there was no need for Díaz-Pérez to cut de la Cruz-Paulino into the deal to obtain her package-carrying services. Cf. United, States v. Francomano, 554 F.2d 488, 487 (1st Cir.1977) (<HOLDING>). The jury could not, without engaging in 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that no hearing was required where there were written reports supporting defendants competency (B) holding that required drug testing of student who had been suspended for fighting was unconstitutional because there was no reasonable suspicion of drug use and no special needs requiring a suspicionless search distinguishing todd and vemonia on their facts (C) holding there were no grounds for challenging in a termination proceeding the alleged failure to comply with the ada in the provision of services because services are not required by the termination statute (D) holding in the context of a promissory estoppel claim that reasonable businessmen could not have relied on a statement that they had a deal when so many terms of the transaction were up in the air (E) holding that there was no basis for a reasonable inference that the defendants were cut in on the drug deal when the record indicated that they were willing to perform the required crewmember services with no special inducement
Output (English): (E)