United States v. Pauling, 924 F.3d 649

John Pauling was tried and convicted by a jury of conspiring with a supplier known as "Low" to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin (21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846); the government proved 89 grams attributable to the Pauling–Low conspiracy.
Wiretap and transaction evidence established four Pauling–Low transactions totaling 89 grams (30g, 30g after cutting, 14g, and 11g cut to 15g).
A July 3, 2016 call: a buyer (Steve) said he wanted "same thing as last time" while ordering 14 grams; the government argued this referenced a prior 14g sale sourced from Low.
The government also relied on circumstantial proof of an ongoing Pauling–Low working relationship (mixing/cutting together, stash house, discussions of future sales) to infer additional quantity.
The district court granted Pauling’s Rule 29 motion, vacating the jury’s finding as to the 100‑gram threshold and entering conviction on a lesser included offense (no mandatory minimum). The government appealed.
The Second Circuit affirmed: it held the evidence insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an additional 11+ grams were attributable to the Pauling–Low conspiracy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (U.S.)	Defendant's Argument (Pauling)	Held
Whether the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the Pauling–Low conspiracy involved ≥100 g heroin	The July 3 call’s "same thing as last time" could refer to a prior 14g Low‑sourced sale; plus circumstantial evidence of an ongoing relationship supports inferring at least 11g more	The wiretap and other evidence do not show who supplied the alleged prior sale or that Low supplied any additional specific quantity beyond the 89g	Held: Insufficient evidence. The inference that Low supplied an additional 11g is impermissible speculation; affirm Rule 29 grant and conviction on lesser included offense.

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (constitutional standard: elements must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt)
United States v. Barnes, 158 F.3d 662 (single conspiracy must cross quantity threshold)
United States v. Shonubi, 998 F.2d 84 (quantity inferences cannot be mere surmise)
United States v. Shonubi, 103 F.3d 1085 (2d Cir.) (limits on extrapolating quantity across multiple trips)
United States v. Martinez, 54 F.3d 1040 (inferences must be strong enough to support quantity finding beyond a reasonable doubt)
United States v. Quattrone, 441 F.3d 153 (courts may not credit inferences that are unreasonable)
United States v. Coplan, 703 F.3d 46 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence challenges)