Defendant's drug conspiracy conviction is affirmed where: 1) sharing a common supplier, without more, did not demonstrate that two drug dealers were acting together for their shared mutual benefit; and 2) the mere introduction of a common supplier, made by one drug dealer to another, was not sufficient to create a single conspiracy among all the dealers, but these errors did not affect defendant's substantial rights. However, defendant's sentence is vacated where the jury's determination of drug quantity was clearly erroneous because it was based on an unsupported tripartite conspiracy.
Filed December 29, 2009
Opinion by Judge Lucero
John T. Carlson and Raymond P. Moore, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Denver, CO
Sanford C. Coats, John C. Richter, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Oklahoma City, OK