Opinion ID: 578165
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Government's Appeal--The Object of the Conspiracy

Text: 38 The government also appeals from Judge Martin's determination that the actual narcotics delivered, rather than the amount that the conspirators agreed to deliver, determined Cabrera's base offense level. We agree with the government's position on this issue. 39 Conspiracy, as an inchoate crime, commences with the agreement. See United States v. Labat, 905 F.2d 18, 21 (2d Cir.1990) (Since the essence of conspiracy is the agreement and not the commission of the substantive offense that is its objective, the offense of conspiracy may be established even if the collaborators do not reach their goal.) (citations omitted); United States v. Rubin, 844 F.2d 979, 983 (2d Cir.1988) (The fundamental element of a conspiracy is unlawful agreement.) (citations omitted). Because the agreement defines the conspiracy, the parties' failure to complete the transaction does not shrink the conspiracy's scope. 40 Guidelines § 2D1.4 reflects this jurisprudential focus, displaying a clear resolve to punish the agreement: 41 Base Offense Level: If a defendant is convicted of a conspiracy or an attempt to commit any offense involving a controlled substance, the offense level shall be the same as if the object of the conspiracy or attempt had been completed. 42 Guidelines § 2D1.4(a). Application Note 1 to § 2D1.4 further explains that [i]f the defendant is convicted of an offense involving negotiation to traffic in a controlled substance, the weight under negotiation in an uncompleted distribution shall be used to calculate the applicable amount. Addressing this same issue, the Ninth Circuit, holding that the negotiated amount defined the scope of a conspiracy, stressed that [t]he fact that a little less is distributed does not affect the computation. United States v. Alvarez-Cardenas, 902 F.2d 734, 736 (9th Cir.1990); see also United States v. Perez, 871 F.2d 45, 48 (6th Cir.) (Under the sentencing guidelines, the amount of the drug being negotiated, even in an uncompleted distribution, shall be used to calculate the total amount in order to determine the base level.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 910, 109 S.Ct. 3227, 106 L.Ed.2d 576 (1989). Similarly, in applying § 2D1.4 in United States v. Adames, 901 F.2d 11 (2d Cir.1990), we held that in a drug transaction the offense level of a defendant attempting to purchase narcotics is properly calculated according to the amount negotiated, not the lesser amount actually delivered. 43 We are not unmindful that the Guidelines create an exception for cases where the district court finds that the defendant did not intend or was not reasonably capable of supplying the agreed upon amount and was only puffing. See Guidelines § 2D1.4, Application Note 1; United States v. Vazzano, 906 F.2d 879, 884 (2d Cir.1990). This case did not involve puffing, however. Cabrera agreed to deliver two kilograms of cocaine and came close to doing so.