## Facts

- Federal prosecutors charged James Dickerson and others with crack-cocaine offenses, including conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 28 grams or more of cocaine base.
- Trial evidence described Joseph Jackson as leading a crack distribution organization with multiple dealers and customers.
- Jayquis Brock served as a dealer within that organization and sold crack to many customers; law enforcement intercepted calls reflecting recurring drug transactions.
- The government’s case against Dickerson focused on his frequent purchases of crack from Brock, often in quantities consistent with redistribution.
- Evidence also showed Dickerson bought crack from suppliers outside the Jackson organization.
- Brock pleaded guilty and testified for the government, but stated Dickerson had no resale agreement with him; transactions were cash-and-carry without credit or fronting; Brock did not view Dickerson as a member of the organization.
- The district court denied Dickerson’s Rule 29 motion on the conspiracy count, reasoning that “steady demand” and “steady supply” allowed an inference that each had a conspiratorial stake in the other’s business.
- The jury convicted Dickerson of conspiracy and a substantive distribution count; the court imposed concurrent sentences totaling 168 months.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove Dickerson knowingly and intentionally agreed to join and further a § 846 narcotics conspiracy, rather than merely engaging in a buyer–seller relationship with members of the conspiracy.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit held the evidence was insufficient to support Dickerson’s conspiracy conviction.
- The court concluded the proof established, at most, a buyer–seller relationship reflected in repeated buy-sell transactions.
- The court vacated the conspiracy conviction and the sentence imposed on that count.
- The substantive distribution conviction was left undisturbed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings, including resentencing consistent with the vacatur.

## Legal Principles

- A narcotics conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 846 requires proof of a knowing and intentional agreement to violate the drug laws and to join and further the charged unlawful plan.
- A buyer–seller relationship, even if repeated or involving large quantities, does not by itself establish a conspiracy; the government must show additional evidence of a shared conspiratorial objective or cooperative conduct beyond sales.
- Examples of evidence that may support an inference of conspiracy (as contrasted with mere sales) include credit/fronting arrangements, exclusive dealing, profit-sharing, coordinated operations, or other conduct showing the buyer became part of the distribution scheme.
- Circumstantial evidence may prove conspiracy, but it must support a reasonable inference of agreement with the charged conspiracy, not merely an inference that the defendant independently redistributed drugs.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit vacated Dickerson’s drug-conspiracy conviction because the government proved only recurring purchases from a dealer in a larger organization, without evidence that Dickerson agreed to participate in or further the organization’s broader distribution conspiracy.


United States v. Brock, 789 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 2015)