Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): that Boyd would replenish his drug supply by traveling to New Orleans, sometimes daily or every two or three days as necessary. But that is all that is known about Boyd’s source. Although French accompanied Boyd “on a few occasions,” she provided no other information about the identity or location of Boyd’s source, or sources, of drugs. It is not known, for example, whether Boyd obtained his drugs from the same place in New Orleans or from the same person or persons. It is not known whether Boyd used a different source or sources on the occasions that French did not accompany him. Nor is it known whether Boyd obtained his drugs in bulk or in small quantities. French testified that she did not know how much Boyd purchased when he went to New Orleans. Cf. Delgado, 672 F.3d at 332-34 (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Holloway, 377 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that trial court did not err in refusing to give instruction that mere buyerseller relationship in single transaction does not alone support a conspiracy conviction where there was evidence of advanced planning among the alleged conspirators to deal in wholesale quantities of drugs obviously not intended for personal use (B) holding that an indictment that referred to wholesale quantities of cocaine and cocaine base was sufficiently broad to include the specific quantities of drugs actually found by the jury (C) holding that the sale of drugs in small quantities is inadequate without additional evidence to support a finding of conspiracy to distribute drugs to others because the seller could reasonably believe that such purchases are intended for the buyers personal use (D) holding that evidence of prior drug transactions was admissible under rule 404b to show inter alia intent to enter into the drug conspiracy and knowledge of the conspiracy (E) holding that evidence supported conspiracy with an unnamed drug supplier where inter alia defendant purchased wholesale quantities of drugs from the supplier
Output (English): holding that evidence of prior drug transactions was admissible under rule 404b to show inter alia intent to enter into the drug conspiracy and knowledge of the conspiracy