United States v. Mullins, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 1766

Mullins was charged and convicted of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and more than 28 grams of cocaine base based on activity from Sept. 2010–Nov. 2011.
MDEA used a confidential informant (CI) with a body wire to make a controlled purchase: CI bought ten bags of powder cocaine from Mullins but received eight because Mullins kept two as a fee. Mullins called the 100 Ohio Street organization during the visit.
Mullins later admitted in a recorded post‑Miranda statement that he worked for the Dominicans as a “runner,” purchasing roughly $5,000 of crack/powder weekly and reselling some for profit; some customers were referred to him by the organization.
Law enforcement seized ~368 grams of crack from an apartment used by the organization. Testimony indicated the 100 Ohio Street group’s sales were about 90% crack and that Mullins frequently purchased from members like “Fish.”
Jury convicted after a two‑day trial. At sentencing the court attributed 140 grams of crack to Mullins (conservative estimate), producing a Guidelines range of 140–175 months; Mullins was sentenced to 140 months.

Issue	Mullins' Argument	Government's Position	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy conviction	Evidence at most shows Mullins was an addict and independent reseller, not a conspirator	His recorded statement, CI sale, referrals, phone calls, and other testimony support membership in the 100 Ohio St. conspiracy	Conviction affirmed — evidence sufficient to support conspiracy verdict
Jury instruction on separate conspiracies	Court should have sua sponte instructed about separate conspiracies; error prejudiced him	District court gave an instruction requiring jury to convict only of the conspiracy charged; instruction adequate	No plain error — instruction proper and conveyed defense theory
Drug‑type attribution at sentencing (90% crack)	No basis to attribute 90% crack to Mullins; controlled buy was powder cocaine	Testimony that the organization’s sales were 90% crack and seizure of crack supported the finding; court used conservative estimates	Finding not clearly erroneous; attribution upheld
Drug‑quantity calculation and foreseeability	Quantity findings imprecise; should not hold him accountable for more than he handled	Court may use reasonable approximations and foreseeability of conspiracy amount; court used conservative approach	Sentence affirmed — drug quantity finding permissible and conservative

United States v. Boidi, 568 F.3d 24 (1st Cir.) (continued purchase and upstream dealer knowledge permits inference of agreement)
United States v. Moran, 984 F.2d 1299 (1st Cir.) (ongoing purchase–sale relationship supports conspiratorial agreement)
United States v. Niemi, 579 F.3d 123 (1st Cir.) (jury instruction on charged conspiracy sufficient when it conveys substance of defense)
United States v. Balthazard, 360 F.3d 309 (1st Cir.) (similar holding on conspiracy instruction)
United States v. Díaz, 670 F.3d 332 (1st Cir.) (defendant entitled to instruction limiting jury to the conspiracy charged when evidence could support another conspiracy)
United States v. Ventura, 353 F.3d 84 (1st Cir.) (drug‑quantity findings may be reasonable approximations)
United States v. Santos, 357 F.3d 136 (1st Cir.) (foreseeability governs attribution of conspiracy drug amounts)
United States v. Rodriguez, 731 F.3d 20 (1st Cir.) (imprecise drug‑quantity findings upheld when based on conservative estimates)