United States v. Caldwell
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
589 F.3d 1323 (2009)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Samuel Herrera was a marijuana supplier to several street-level dealers, including Michael Caldwell (defendant). David Anderson was also a marijuana dealer and a friend of Caldwell. Early in their friendship Anderson sold a small amount of marijuana to Caldwell on two or three occasions. Anderson did not sell any marijuana to Caldwell after these sales. A year after the sales, Anderson was seeking a new marijuana supplier and asked Caldwell if he knew anyone. Caldwell facilitated a meeting between Anderson and Herrera. Thereafter, Herrera supplied marijuana to Anderson in addition to Caldwell. Caldwell was present at the meeting between Anderson and Herrera, but Caldwell did not receive any compensation for the introduction. Caldwell did not have any further role in Anderson’s purchases from Herrera. The U.S. government alleged that Caldwell, Herrera, and Anderson were engaged in a single drug conspiracy. The government charged Caldwell with conspiring to distribute at least 100 kilograms of marijuana, a threshold that was met only by combining Herrera’s sales to Caldwell and Anderson. Caldwell admitted that he conspired with Herrera and did not dispute that Herrera conspired with Anderson. A jury convicted Caldwell, and he appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lucero, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
