Opinion ID: 4556811
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Buyer-Seller Instruction

Text: Overton also contends the district court erred by denying his request for an instruction that a mere buyer-seller relationship does not establish a conspiracy to distribute drugs. “We review the adequacy of instructions by considering them as a whole, and we grant the district court broad discretion in formulating appropriate jury instructions.” United States v. Hester, 140 F.3d 753, 757 (8th Cir. 1998). “A defendant is entitled to an instruction explaining his defense theory if the request is timely, the proffered instruction is supported by the evidence, and the instruction correctly states the law.” Id. We have required a buyer-seller instruction where “there was evidence that the defendant made only a single purchase of cocaine, that he had made no prior agreement to purchase cocaine, and that he did not know the other alleged conspirators prior to that single purchase.” See id. (citing United States v. Prieskorn, 658 F.2d 631, 636 (8th Cir. 1981)). By contrast, we have stated that the “instruction is not appropriate when there is evidence of multiple drug transactions, as opposed to a single, isolated sale.” Id. Here, the evidence showed that Overton had a close relationship with the other members of Kearnice’s organization and that he obtained heroin from them on several occasions. Witnesses also testified that he distributed heroin to multiple people. -12- Although there was testimony that Overton used heroin and only received it in small quantities, the district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that a buyer-seller instruction was not warranted by the evidence.