Is a transaction between a buyer and seller of drugs sufficient to establish a conspiracy to distribute drugs?

Generally, a transaction between a buyer and a seller of drugs is not enough to establish a conspiracy to distribute drugs because the drug deal itself is a substantive crime. United States v. Hawkins, 547 F.3d 66, 71 (2d Cir. 2008). In order to find a conspiracy, the court must conduct "a highly fact-specific inquiry into whether the circumstances

Page 5

surrounding a buyer-seller relationship establish an agreement to participate in a distribution conspiracy." Id. at 74. Relevant factors that distinguish between a buyer-seller relationship and a distribution conspiracy include: "whether there was a prolonged cooperation between the parties, a level of mutual trust, standardized dealings, sales on credit, and the quantity of drugs involved." United States v. Brock, 789 F.3d 60, 64 (2d Cir. 2015) (internal quotation and brackets omitted). "[M]ere awareness on the part of the seller that the buyer intends to resell the drugs is not sufficient to show that the seller and the buyer share a conspirational intent to further the buyer's resale." United States v. Parker, 554 F.3d 230, 235 (2d Cir. 2009). "[T]he seller cannot be considered to have joined a conspiracy with the buyer to advance the buyer's resale unless the seller has somehow encouraged the venture or has a stake in itan interest in bringing about its success." Id. at 235-36.