United States v. Faltine
686 F. App'x 51
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Clyde Faltine was convicted of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine and marijuana (21 U.S.C. § 846) and raises no challenge to his separate § 841 possession-with-intent convictions and concurrent ten-year sentence.
- The Government’s theory at trial: a long-running drug partnership between Faltine and supplier Voisin in Brooklyn, in which Voisin supplied large quantities for resale by Faltine.
- Evidence showed a three-year relationship with transactions at multiple locations (Faltine’s restaurant, rented yard, and apartment), and repeated visits to Voisin’s newsstand.
- Voisin made an estimated 50 deliveries to Faltine and sold roughly 40–50 kg of cocaine and 40–50 lb of marijuana to Faltine, who redistributed the drugs.
- Transactions were frequent, often large (2–5 kg cocaine), and included sales on credit/consignment (Faltine paid after resale), supporting a finding of mutual reliance and a conspiratorial purpose.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy conviction | Government: evidence of repeated, large sales, sales on credit, and mutual dependence supports a shared conspiratorial purpose | Faltine: transactions were mere buyer-seller purchases insufficient to establish a conspiracy | Affirmed: viewed in Government’s favor, indicia (long relationship, credit, large quantities, repeated dealings) permit conviction under buyer-seller plus factors test |
| Whether buyer-seller rule insulated Faltine from conspiracy liability | Govt: buyer-seller rule does not bar conviction where purchaser furthers seller’s distribution or buys on consignment to resell | Faltine: contemporaneous purchases were ordinary sales, not an agreement to further broader distribution | Affirmed: court applied Parker/Brock factors to find conspiratorial purpose beyond simple sales |
| District court’s refusal to give a multiple conspiracies jury instruction | Govt: only one conspiracy was alleged and proved (the Voisin–Faltine distribution network) | Faltine: evidence of separate supply chains (Arizona, Trinidad) warranted multiple conspiracies instruction | Affirmed: only one conspiracy was charged/proved and Faltine failed to show separate networks or substantial prejudice |
| Prejudice from failing to instruct on multiple conspiracies | Govt: limited evidence of other networks was contextual and not markedly different from charged conduct | Faltine: absence of instruction could have misled jury about his nonparticipation in other networks | Affirmed: no substantial prejudice shown; short single-defendant trial makes prejudice claim harder |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Brock, 789 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 2015) (buyer-seller rule and factors for inferring conspiracy beyond mere sale)
- United States v. Coplan, 703 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2012) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence; crediting inferences for Government)
- United States v. Parker, 554 F.3d 230 (2d Cir. 2009) (buyer-seller rule exceptions where purchaser or seller shares conspiratorial purpose)
- United States v. Rojas, 617 F.3d 669 (2d Cir. 2010) (affirming conspiracy where seller sold on credit and had longstanding relationship supporting resale intent)
- United States v. Hawkins, 547 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2008) (upholding conspiracy conviction where buyer repeatedly purchased on credit intending to resell)
- United States v. Maldonado-Rivera, 922 F.2d 934 (2d Cir. 1990) (multiple conspiracy instruction not required if only one conspiracy alleged and proved)
- United States v. Cusimano, 123 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 1997) (defendant must show separate networks and substantial prejudice to prevail on failure-to-instruct claim)
- United States v. Alessi, 638 F.2d 466 (2d Cir. 1980) (evidence against co-defendants not markedly different does not warrant reversal for instructional error)