## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 11

- 1927 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v . M A R I O N UNEZ, D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant
.
A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 10 C R 740-1

—A my J . St . Eve, Judge
.
A RG UE D J AN UA RY 25, 2012

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 9, 2012

Befo re B AUER, P OSNER, an d R OV NER, C ircu it Judges . P OSNER, Cir cu i tJudg e . T hi s cr i m i na la ppea lr equi r es us to wre st l e o nc e ag ain wi ththe di st i nc ti o n b etwee n a “mer e” b uy er - se l l err el at i o n a nd a c o ns pi r ac y i nv o l ving a buy er a n d a s e l l e r . F o r o u r e a r l i e r s t r u g g l e s wi th t he iss u e, se e, e.g ., Un i t e d S t a t e s v . C ol on , 5 49 F. 3d 565 ( 7th Ci r . 20 08 ) , an d the s i x o pi ni o ns i n U ni t e d S t at e s v. Le ch uga , 994 F.2d 346 (7th C ir. 1993) (en ban c). The defe nd ant w as convi cted by a j ury ofco nspir acy t o p o s s e s s a nd di s t r ib ut e c o c a i ne , i n v i o l a t i o n o f2 1 U. S

. C.2 N o. 11

- 1927 §§ 8 41 ( a) ( 1) , 8 46 , a nd o fr el at ed off en se s, a nd was s en ten c e d t o 8 5 mon ths i n pr i s o n. He a s k s us t o o r der t hat he be acqui tte d of the c onspi ra cy charg e ( and rel ate d ch a r g e s de pe nd e nt o n i t ) , o n the g r o un d tha t no r eas o n ab l e j u r y c o u l d f i n d h i m g u i l t y o fc o n s p i r a c y . He as k s i n th e al te r na ti ve tha t we o r dera ne w tr i alo n the gr ound that the ve rdi ct of c on spi ra cy w as aga i nst the wei ght o fthe evi dence. S i n c e th e s a l e o f i l l e g a l d r u g s i s a c r i me , o ne mig ht th i nki t woul d m ake no di ffer en ce whethe r a de fen dan t was pr o se cut ed as a s el l ero r a s a m embe r ofa c o nspi ra cy to sell, and hence that the g ove rnm ent woul d be ass um i ng a g ra tui tous burden, i n char gi ng co nspir acy, o f proving tha t the defendant w as conspi ring, and not j ust sell ing. T he co n c e rn

— re m ot e fro m th e t ra d itio n al c rit ic ism s o f th e c on c ep t o f co n s p i r ac y, se e, e.g ., Kru l e wit ch v. U nited Sta tes , 336 U .S. 4 4 0 , 4 45 -58 (19 49 ) (Jac ks on , J. , c on c u rrin g); Ha rrison v. U nited Sta tes , 7 F. 2d 259, 26 3 ( 2d C ir. 19 25 ) (L . H an d , J. )

— is re d u n d an c y. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Rey nol ds , 91 9 F

. 2d 435, 439 (7th Cir. 1990). B ut there are l eg iti m at e, s i g ni fi ca nta dva nt ag es t o pr o se cut o r s i n dr ug ca se s no t o nl y o fpr o vingc o ns pi r ac y, wh ich i s no t th e sa m e th i nga s ch ar g i ng c ons pi r ac y, b uta l so o fo bt aini ng a ve rdi ct o fco nspir acy. A lth ou gh th e s en te n c e fo r se llin g or co n sp iri n g to se ll i s the sa m e when i t i s ba sed on t h e s am e quanti ty of d ru gs , 21 U .S.C . § 84 6, a c on sp ira c y w ill ofte n, as in t h is c as e, em b ra c e a g r ea te r q u an tit y t h an th e a m ou n t s old bya s i ng l e defen dan t; f o r i t wi l li nc l ude the a m o unt foreseeable to the de fend an t t h a t the cons p iratorsN o. 11

- 1927 3 i ntended to sel li n further ance o ft h e c onsp i ra cy. True, f o r c o ns pi r a c y a s f o r di s t r ib ut i o n the r e l e v a ntqua nti ty f o r pur po se s o fs en te nc i ngunde r the fede r als en te nc i ng gu idelines is l im ited to th e d efend an t’s “j ointly un d ert a ke n ac tiv ity ,” U .S.S.G . § 1B 1.3 (a)( 1)(B ); Un i t e d S t a t e s v. Lewis , 1 10 F.3d 41 7, 42 2-2 3 (7 th C ir. 19 99 ); U nited Sta tes v. Spotted E lk, 548 F .3 d 64 1, 67 3-7 4 (8 th C ir. 20 08 ); U nited St at e s v. La b oy, 351 F.3d 578 , 582 (1st C ir. 2003), a term that w hi l e s i m i l arto “co nspir acy” and often t re ate d as i nter changeabl e w i th i t, se e U ni t e d St at e s v. Al varado- Tizoc, 656 F. 3d 740, 74 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 11 ), i s nar ro w erbec ause the a cti vi ty und er tak en bythe defe nd ant in conce rtwith othe rs i s m or e l i m i ted tha n t h e acti vi ty, f or ese eabl e t o hi m , o fthe enti re co nspir acy . S ee U nited Sta tes v. M o ral es , 65 5 F .3d 60 8, 63 5-3 6 (7 th C ir. 20 11 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Almanza , 22 5 F

. 3d 845, 84 6 (7th C i r. 20 00)

. But proo fo f con sp iracy goes far to estab li sh tha t t h e de fend an t’s j oi ntl y undert ake n acti vi ty in vo lved a l ar gerquanti ty of dr ug s tha n tho s e h e h i mse l fs o l d. Forpurposes o fdeter m i ni ng st atuto ry( as dist i nct fr o m g ui del i ne s) min im um s, mor eo ve r, the t o ta la m o unt o fdrug s at t r ib ut ab l e t o a c o ns pi r a c y c a n b e a g g r e g a t e d, U nited Sta tes v. E a ster, 5 53 F

. 3d 51 9, 5 23 ( 7th Ci r . 20 09 ) , b ut no t th e amoun ts i nv o l ve d i n m ul ti pl e co unt s o f d i st r ibutio n . U ni t e d S t at e s v. Re s i nos , 631 F.3d 886 , 8 8 8 ( 8 t h C ir. 2 0 1 1 ) (en ba n c ) (p er cu ria m ); U nite d State s v. Sand li n , 3 13 F.3 d 35 4, 35 5-5 6 (6 th C ir. 2 00 2) (p er cu ria m ); U nited Sta tes v. Har r i s on , 241 F.3d 289 , 291-92 (2d Cir. 2001). Statu tory m inim um sent en ces, as i n 21 U

. S. C

. §§ 841 (b )( 1)(A ), ( b) ( 1) ( B) , ar e a bo o n to pr o se cut o r s be ca us e so m an y sente nc e s a r e b e l o w the g ui de l i ne s r a ng e s ( i n fi s c a ly e ar4 N o. 11

- 1927 20 10 , 4 3 per ce nto fs en te nc es na ti o nwi de an d 4 9 per ce nt in the S ev en thCi r cui t, U. S

. S en te nc i ngCo m m i ss i o n, “N ati onalCom paris on o fS entence I m posed and Posi ti on Rel ati ve to the Gui del i ne Range: Fi scalYear2010, ”, www. us s c . g ov/Data_a nd

_ S t a t i s t i c s /Annua l

_Re po r t s

_ a nd

_ So urceb oo ks/ 2010 /Tabl eN

. pd f, and “ Co mpa ri son of S en te nc e I m po se d a nd Po si ti o n Re la ti ve t o the Gui del i ne Range byCi rcui t: Fi scalYear201 0, ” ww w . ussc. gov/ Data_and_St ati sti cs/ A nnual_Repor ts_ and_Sour cebo oks / 2010 /Ta bleN -7. p d f (both visi ted Feb. 23, 2012)). Evidence ofprior cri m es i s l ess l i kel y t o be b ar re d fr om adm i ssi on byFe d. R. Evi d. 404(b) ( 1) in a c onspi ra cy case , b ec ause pri orcr i m es ar e l i kel y t o be g er m ane t o e s t ab l i s hing tha t the de fe nd a nt ha d a r e l a t i o ns hi p w i th o th erpa r ti ci pan ts i n h is dr ugde al s th atwentb ey o nd m er e buyi ng o r sel l i ng. S ee U nited Sta tes v. G ilm er, 53 4 F .3 d 6 9 6 , 705 (7t h C ir. 20 08 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Pe ns on , 89 6 F.2 d 10 87, 10 92 -93 (7t h C ir. 19 90 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. M e r ca do , 573 F.3d 138, 144 (2d Cir. 2009). O u t-o f-c ou rtst at em en ts by a c on s p ira to r ar e fre ely adm i ss ible i n evi dence ag ai nst hi s co conspi ra tor s a s a dmi s s i o ns o fa p a r t y o pp o ne nt, r a the r tha n b e i ngi na dm iss i b l e a s h ea rs ay , Fed . R. E vid . 801 (d )(2) (E ); U nited Sta tes v. R ea , 621 F.3d 59 5, 60 4 (7 th C ir. 20 10 ); U nited S ta tes v. Lo pez , 64 9 F

. 3d 12 22 , 12 38 ( 11 th Ci r . 2011); U ni t e d S t at e s v. D i az , 597F.3d 56 , 67 (1 s t C i r . 201 0), although thei r adm i ssibi l i ty re quires not that conspi ra cy be c harg ed but o nl y that i t be p ro ved by a pre pond er ance ofthe evi d en c e. U nited Sta tes v. B o liv a r, 532 F. 3d 599, 604 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08); U nite d State s v. M arti nez de O rt iz , 90 7 F.2d 629 , 632 (7th C ir. 1990) (en ban c).N o. 11

- 1927 5 The e vi den ti ar y b ur deno n th e g o ve r nm en t o fpr o ving a co ns pirac y o fte n i s l i g ht ertha n tha t o fpr o ving m ult i ple char ges o f di str ibuti on in or der t o m axi m i ze the quanti ty ofdrugs f orwh i ch the defe nd ant c an be hel d res ponsibl e. Pro secuting ev er y s al e be tw een seller and b uyer i n thi s case , f or exam ple , w oul d ha ve bee n d ifficu lt. T h e g o v e r n m en t h ad vid eo ev id en c e o f on ly tw o s al e s . P ro vin g t h e o th er s b ey on d a re as on ab le do ubtwoul d ha ve de pen ded o n the c r edibi l i tyo fthe se l l er, who ha d b ee n induc ed t o te st i fy f o r the g o ve r nm en t an d w ou ld be vu lnerable to cross-ex am ination. To p ersuade a j ury t o convi ct o n a s i ngl e co nspir acy charg e the g ove rnm ent ne ed prov e o nl y a n ag re em ent. Quanti ty i s no t a n elem en t, U nite d State s v. G arci a , 58 0 F

. 3d 528, 535 ( 7th Cir

. 20 09 ); B a rker v . U nited Sta tes , 7 F. 3d 629, 63 4 ( 7 t h C i r . 1 9 9 3 ) , a n d p r o o fo fa n o v e r ta c ti s n o tr e q u i r e d. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Sh ab ani, 513 U

. S. 10 (1994). Ch ar gi ng a conspi ra cy can av oi d a statute ofl i m i tati ons defe nse that would be e ffecti ve aga i nst a char ge ofdi stribu tion. The st atute o fl i m i tat i ons f orco nspir acy does not begin to r un agains t a n i nd i vi du alco nspir ato r u n til h e w ith d ra w s fro m th e c on sp i r a c y, U nited Sta tes v . Wren , 36 3 F

. 3d 65 4, 66 3 ( 7th Ci r . 20 04 ) , an d i t is diffi cul t t o prove thato ne has w i thd raw n other than by beco m i ng a gov er nm ent info rm ant; m er e cessa ti on o f ac tiv ity on be h alfo ft h e c on sp ira c y is n oten ou gh

. Hyde v. U nited Sta tes , 2 2 5 U .S. 34 7, 36 9 (1 91 2); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Palad i no , 4 0 1 F .3d 47 1, 47 9-8 0 (7 th C ir. 20 05 ); U nited S t at e s v . Bo re ll i, 336 F. 2d 376, 38 8 ( 2d Cir

. 19 64) ( Fr i endly, J .)

. A n d fina lly a s m all fry p ro se c u te d for m em b er sh ip in a con sp ira c y i s un like ly to ob ta in a sev er an c e of his6 N o. 11

- 1927
tr i alfro m thato fthe ringl eader s. S ee U nited Sta tes v. Tiem

Tri nh , 665 F.3d 1, 17 ( 1st C ir. 2011). I n the prese nt cas e, how eve r, bychar gi ng co nspir acy i n a ddi ti o n t o di st r ibut i o n the g o ve r nm en t hande d the de fe nd a nth i s o nly g r o un d o fa pp e al

— a ve xi ngg r o und because o fthe diffi cul ty ofdrawing a cl earl i ne be tw een sal es, and conspi ra ci es to sel l, i n part i cul arcas es. The diffi cul ty i s i l l um i nated byan a nti tr ust a nal ogy . Se cti on 1 o f the Sher m an A ct pu ni shes contr acts , co m bi nati ons, and conspi ra ci es i n re str ai nt o ftr ade, 15 U

. S. C. § 1 , and the dist i ncti on am ong these ter m s is u ni m port ant. I fa s e l l e r s i g ns a c o nt r a c t wi th a b uy e r tha t s e t s a f l oo r unde r the r et ai lpr i ce a t whi chthe b uy ermay r es el lthe se l l er ’ s pr o duct, the r esu lt i ngl i m i ta ti o n o n int r ab r an d pri ce c om peti ti on ca n be chal l enged under s ect ion 1 as a co nt r ac t i n r es tr ainto ft r ade , b ut equal l y a s a co nspi r ac y i n r es tr ainto ft r ad e; f o r “ co ns pi r ac y ” i n s ec ti o n 1 is si m p ly a p ej orative term f o r a c ont ract, both “c ons p irac y ” an d “ co nt r ac t” signi fy i nga n a g r ee m en t, a meet i ng ofm i nd s . T ha ti s e qu a l l y t r ue wh e n o ne p e r son agr ees to se l li l l ega ldrugs to an ot h er . Of cour se to be leg ally en for c ea b le a c on tr ac t req u ire s ce rt ain fo r m alitie s, w h i c h w ill no t b e fo u n d in a co n sp ira c y. B u t t h eir abse nce i s o fno m om ent; a cri m i nalco ntra ct i s unenf or ceabl e whateverf or m i t t ake s. The federa ld rug l aw s, h owever, insi st on the di stincti on b et w ee n a c on sp ira c y an d a c on tr ac t o f sa le. E .g., U nited St at e s v. Val l ar, 635 F.3d 27 1, 28 6-8 7 (7 th C ir. 20 11 ); U nited St at e s v. Johns on , 592 F.3d 74 9, 75 4-5 7 (7 th C ir. 20 10 ); U nited St at e s v. D e lgado , N o. 07- 4104 1, 2012 W L 5 7401 2, at* 7- 8 ( 5thN o. 11

- 1927 7 C ir. Feb . 22, 20 12 ) (en ba n c ); i d. a t * 33

- 38 ( di ss en ting o pi ni o n) , a nd c as es c i te d i n id

. at* 33 n. 20

. A s e xplained i n U ni t e d S t at e s v. Col on , sup ra , 5 49 F

. 3d at5 69 , quo ting U ni t e d S t at e s v. Towns e nd, 924 F.2d 13 8 5 , 1 3 9 4 (7th C ir. 1991) , “there ar e pr acti calr eas ons f ornotco nfl ating sa le wi th c o n s p i r a c y . ‘ A s a l e , b y d e fi n i t i o n, r e q u i r e s t wo parti es; thei r com bi nati on f ortha t l i m i ted purpose does not i ncre ase the l i kel i hood thatthe sal e wil lta ke pla ce, so co nspir acy l i abi l i ty w oul d be inapp ro pri ate
. ’ ” But “a con sp iracy i nv olves m ore pe o p le an d can therefore com m i t m or e cr i m es; and i t c an d o so m or e e ffi ci entl y, bye xpl o i tingthe di vi si o n o fl ab o r a nd b y a r ran ging concea l m ent m or e e ffec tiv ely

— so m et im es thro ugh subor ni ng l aw enf or cer s. ” U nite d State s v. M anz el la , 79 1 F.2d 126 3, 1265 ( 7th Cir. 1986). S o the r e mus tb e mo r e tha n j us ta s a l e o fdr ugs t o s up p or t an i nfe re nce o fco nspir acy, and the questi on i s what m o r e. The a ns wermights ee m t o de pen d o n h o w the cr i m i na ll aw dr aws the li ne b etwee n c o nt r ac t an d c o nspi ra cy. The l i ne m i ght run betw een “ contr act” co ncei ved ofas a pu re l y arm ’ s- l ength re l ati onshi p and “conspi ra cy” c on c eiv ed of a s a c oo p er at ive rela tio n sh ip

— a re lat ion sh ip ofm utual as si sta nce. S ee U nited Sta tes v. Sp eed, 6 5 6 F

. 3d 71 4, 71 9 (7 th C ir. 20 11 ); U nite d S t at e s v. Towns e nd, sup ra , 9 2 4 F

. 2 d a t1 3 9 2

. Ac t ua l l ytha two ul d b e a di s t i nc t i on am on g t yp es of co n tr a c t . A sp otco n tr ac t, illu st ra te d in i ts pu re st f or m bya tr ade on a s toc k ex change, i nvol ves a m ini m alr el ati onshi p, bec ause ther e i s o nl y the sing le tr ansact i on a nd the parti es m ay notev en be i denti fi ed to each o ther

. In contr ast, the aptl y na m ed “r el ati onal contr act, ” s uch as a l ong- ter m r equ ire m ents contr act, cre ate s a co nti nuing re l ati onsh ip fl exibl e e nough to8 N o. 11

- 1927 adapt to change s o fci rc u m st an ce that co uld nothave b e e n fu l l y a n t i c i p a t e d w h e n th e c o n t r a c tw a s n e g o t i a t e d. Se e Charl es J

. Goetz & Robe rt E

. S cot t, “Pr i nci ple s ofRel ati onalContr acts , ” 6 7 Va. L. R e v. 10 89, 10 92- 95 ( 1981 )

. S o one w ay to und er sta nd a drug co nspir acy i s a s a r el ati onalco ntra ct a m ong drug deal er s. S ee U n i t ed St at e s v. Le ch uga , sup ra , 994 F.2d at 349 ( p lurali ty op inion). W i th o utne ce ss ar i l y e ndo r singtha t appr o ac h, l etus consi der o n w hi ch si de ofthatl i ne the pre sent case f al l s. The defe nd an t h ad bo ught al m osttwo ki l ogr am s o f coca i ne fro m a m an nam ed Lati ne o vera peri od o f18 m o nth s . S o me o fth e s a l e s h a d b e e n o n c r e d i t, a n d L a t i ne ha d s o m et i m es a l l o wed the de fen dan t to r etur n c o ca i ne he had bought be cause i t w as not ofthe agr eed- up on q u ali ty, and w hen thathappened L atine had r efund ed the purchas e pr i ce. I t i s uncl earhow m any s al es i n to tal he m ade to the defe nd ant o verthe cour se ofthei r re l ati o ns hi p, b utfr o m hi s te st i m o nyc o nc erni ngthe a m o unt of each sale a j ury co uld reason ably i nfer th at th ere had been a t l eas t s eve n sal es. These fa cts j ust r eve ala com m onpla ce whol esa l e r el ati onshi p. The defe nd ant w as a re tai l deal er, w h i ch m eans th athe pr o babl y ha d a numbe r o fc us to m er s an d th athi s sa l es t o the m wer e spo t tr an sa ct i o ns , whi l e he had a co nti nuing re l ati on with hi s whole sa ler, Lati ne. Sa les o n c r e d it a n d ret u rn s fo r re fu n d s a re n or m al in c idents o fbuye r- sel l err el ati onship s, spot oro ther w i se; so th us f ara l lwe’ ve s ee n t o di st i ng ui shthe de fen dan t’s d ea li ngs with Lati ne fro m “m er e” sal es i s that the sa l es w er e no t s pot t ra nsaction s a nd were w hol esa l e r ather than r eta i lsa l es.N o. 11

- 1927 9 The go ver nm ent a dd s that there was “m utual tr ust” b et w ee n th e d efe n d an t a n d L at in e, an d it cit es ca se s in w hi ch ourco urt and other cour ts have described “m utual tr u st ” a s a fac to r th at d ist in gu ish es a n o r d i n ar y d ru g s ale fro m a d ru g c on sp ira c y. E .g., U ni t e d S t at e s v. K inc a nnon , 56 7 F .3d 89 3, 89 8-9 9 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Baugham , 449 F.3d 16 7, 173 (D .C . C ir. 20 06 ); U nited Sta tes v. Was hi ngt on , 3 18 F

. 3d 84 5, 8 52 (8th Ci r . 2 00 3)

. But m utual tr ust i s j ust a n im p li cati on o fi l l ega lsa l es on cre dit; since y ou ca nnot s ue a buyerwh o sti ff s y ou i n an i l l ega ltr ansact i on, yo u m u st trust hi m i n or der t o be w i l l i ng t o ex tend cr edi t t o hi m . S ee U ni t e d S t at e s v. Col on , sup ra , 549 F.3d at56 7-6 8; U ni t ed Sta tes v. Baugha m , sup ra , 449 F .3d at17 3. I t i s no t a n additi onalf acto r but r ather a w ay of ex p lain in g w h y s ale s o n c re d it a re a fac to r in i nfe rrin g c onsp i ra cy. I t would be di ffer ent i fm utual tr ust w er e be i ng in ferre d fr om a f am i l i alr el ati onshi p or som e o therci rcum stance di stinct fro m a w i l l i ngness to m ake an i l l ega lsa l e o n cr edi t. B u t t h is lea v e s u n an sw er ed th e q u es tio n w h y w ill i ngness to sel li l l ega ldrugs on credi t i s e vi dence of conspi ra cy, wh en i t i s s uch a co m m on fea tu re of l ega l sel l i ng. Less tr ust i s invol ved i n l ega lsa l es on cr edi t, s i nc e the s e l l e r ha s l e g a l r e med i e s ; b ut why s ho ul d trust b e t h o u gh t in d ica tiv e o f co n sp ira c y? T h at w ou ld im p ly that sal es on cr edi t were m ade onl y t o coco nspir ato rs . M or eov er , par ti es to an i l l ega lsa l e m usttr ust e ach o th er mo r e th a n i s n o r ma l i n l e g a l s a l e s , e v e n wh e n t he sal e i s forcas h ra therthan on cr edi t: tr ust e ach notto rob th e othe r and not to b e o r t o tu rn gove rnm en t inform ant.10 N o. 11

- 1927 Si nce an agr eem ent t o c om m it a cr i m e i s a co nspir acy, th e w h ol esa l i ng o fi l l ega ldrugs on cr edi t co uld be th o ug htt o g ive rise t o a n a ut o m at i c i nfer en ce o fc o nspi ra cy. The wh ol esa l erkno w s the r eta ilerwil lr epay the l o a n b y c o mm i t t i ngthe c r i me o fs e l l i ngthe i l l ega l dr ug s th athe ’ s ac qui r ed o n c r edi t, a nd b y a cqui es cing the whol esa l erbec om es a p ar ty to the re tai lsa l e, wh i ch i s t o say t o a n a g r e e men t t o c o mm i t a c r i me, whi c h i s a c on sp ira c y. Fo r c as es su p p or tiv e o f th is a p p ro ac h, see , e.g., U ni t e d S t at e s v. Val l ar, sup ra , 635 F .3 d a t 28 6; U nited Sta tes v. R ock, 370 F.3d 71 2, 71 4-1 5 (7 th C ir. 20 04 ); U nited S ta tes v. K ozi ns ki, 16 F .3d 79 5, 80 8 (7 th C ir. 19 94 ); U nited Sta tes v. Le ch uga , sup ra , 994 F.2d at35 0 (p lu ra lity op in ion ); U nited S t a t e s v . P a rker, 5 54 F

. 3d 23 0, 2 38

- 39 ( 2d Ci r . 2 00 9)

. The appr o ac h i s at tr ac ti ve b o thc o nc eptua l l y, b y a l i g ni ng conspi ra cy w i th an agr eem en t to com m i t a cr i m e, and as a w elc om e s i m pli fi cati on o fdoctr i ne, bydrawing a bri ght l i ne be tw een the r eta i land w hol esa l e drug tr ad es an d t r ea tingthe r el at i o ns hi p b etwee n who l es al era nd re tai l eras co nspir acy ra thertha n t ry i ng to di stingui sh con tract from cons p iracy on th e ba s is o f “p lus” factors tha ts e e m m o s t l y ma k e we i g ht s , s uc h a s mutua lt r ust w hen i t i s j ust a n i nfe rence fro m sa l es on cr edi t. A pp l i catio n of th is a p p ro ac h in t h e p re se n t c a s e w ou ld n ail the defendant. A nd thi s m ay be where th e l aw i s hea ded , as the case s j ust ci ted i nd i cate
. But a num bero fo th ercas es, such a s U nit e d S t at e s v. Johns on , sup ra , 5 9 2 F

. 3 d a t 7 5 5

- 5 7, a nd U ni t e d St at e s v. Towns e nd, sup ra , 92 4 F

. 2d at 1392, r ej ect such a rul e.N o. 11

- 1927 11 W e nee dn ’ t cho ose betw ee n t he two l i nes o fautho ri ty i n thi s cas e, b ec au se the r e i s addi ti o na le vi den ce o fc o nspi ra cy. Lati ne’ s s up pli erwas the defe nd ant’ s f ather. H e had been the s on’ s whole sal e s up pli er, but they had quarre l ed and the s on had sw itc hed to buyi ng fro m Lati ne, tho ugh th e f athe r r emaine d hi s so n’ s i ndi r ec t su ppl i er . One eve ni ng the defendant by chance s aw L at i ne’ s ca r sto pp ed by the s i de ofa ro ad and bein g sear ched by p olic e. T h e d efe n d an t t ele p h on e d h is fa th er to te ll him w ha t w as ha p p en ing, an d they agreed thatLa tine’s fam il y shou ld be told and shou ld be u rged to discard an y dr ug s th atLa tine might h av e i n the ho us e. The f athe r d irected hi s so n t o t el lthe f ami l y the se thi ng s, a nd al so to l eave Lati ne’ s ho u se pro m ptl y a fterdoi ng so , be f o r e th e po l i ce a r r i ve d. He a l so t o l d hi s so n tha t he w as i n to uch w i th a perso n at the s cene ofthe ar re st w ho was w ai ti ng to se e whether th e poli ce woul d disc o v e r th e d r u g s h i d d e n i n L a t i n e ’ s c a r a n d a r r e s th i m. W e ne edn ’ t dec i de w he th era c o ns pi r ac y wi ththe f ather was f o r med b y the di s c us s i o n wi th the s o n, o r i nde ed pr e- ex i st ed th e d iscus si o n ( whi chwoul d b e no su rp r i se , sin c e t h e fa th er w as L at in e’s su p p lier). It is en o u g h th a t th e e p i s o d e r e v e a l s mu t u a l s u p p o r t an d prot ecti on g ro und ed i n a f am i l y r el ati onshi p that provi ded l i nk a g e tha ti s n o ta c o mm o n fe a t ur e o fwh o l esa lin g. C f. U ni t e d S t at e s v . M ur r ay, 474 F

. 3d 938, 94 1 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7)

. W he n h e l ea r ne d o fLa tine’s ar r es t th e defen dan t co ul d s impl y ha ve c l ea r ed o ut ; i ns te ad he tr i ed to sa ve Lati ne’ s business. The f am i l y c onnecti on

—12 N o. 11

- 1927 th e d efend an t’s fathe r being Lat ine’s d irect an d th e son’s i nd i re ct s up pli erand the quarr elbetw een f atherand so n b ein g for go tt en in a c ris is

— h ad forg ed a re lat ion sh ip between Lati ne an d t he defendant thatthe j ury w as enti tl ed to char acte rize a s co nspir i ng to di str ibute d r u g s r a th e r th a n me r e l y b u y i n g a n d s e l l i n g t h e m. U ni t e d St at e s v. R ea , sup ra , 621 F.3d at60 8; U nited Sta tes v. Johns on , sup ra , 592 F.3d at75 5-5 6. T h e jud gm en t is th erefore A FFI RMED .

3- 9- 12