United States v. Pedro Pereira
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 6296
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- In December 2011 police stopped a vehicle and found ~145 pounds of marijuana; the driver, Helsene, cooperated and participated in a controlled delivery and identified Kenneth Clarke as the supplier and Pedro Miguel Pereira as a recipient/customer.
- Helsene transported multiple loads from California to Pereira in New Jersey from April–December 2011 (six deliveries total; four deliveries were 60–100 lbs); Pereira typically did not pay up front and sometimes paid for prior loads later.
- Pereira stored received marijuana in his garage and distributed it through intermediaries, principally Nicholas Urciuoli and Nicola Pisani, who received pounds on credit/consignment and sold or stored them for Pereira.
- Urciuoli performed tasks for Pereira (storage, collections, shipping large cash sums to California) and kept a ledger; law enforcement recovered the ledger and over $60,000 from Urciuoli’s home.
- At trial the district court instructed the jury on the distinction between a buyer–seller relationship and a conspiracy to further distribution; a jury convicted Pereira of conspiracy to distribute at least 100 kg of marijuana; Pereira appealed arguing insufficient evidence of a conspiracy beyond a buyer–seller arrangement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to prove Pereira joined an agreement to further distribution (conspiracy) rather than merely a buyer–seller relationship | Government: multiple large deliveries, credit/consignment sales, frequency, cooperation with intermediaries (storage, cash shipments) support inference of agreement to further distribution | Pereira: evidence shows only buyer–seller transactions; no proof of an agreement to further distribution beyond ordinary sales on credit | Affirmed: a rational jury could infer conspiracy from quantity/frequency, credit arrangements, and cooperative acts (storage, money shipments, coordinated distribution) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Love, 706 F.3d 832 (7th Cir. 2013) (standard for overturning sufficiency-of-the-evidence verdict)
- United States v. Brown, 726 F.3d 993 (7th Cir. 2013) (distinguishes buyer–seller agreements from conspiracies to further distribution)
- United States v. Rock, 370 F.3d 712 (7th Cir. 2004) (explaining that routine buyer–seller transactions involve an agreement on price/terms)
- United States v. Johnson, 592 F.3d 749 (7th Cir. 2010) (lists factors that distinguish conspiracy from mere buyer–seller relationships: credit/consignment, recruiting customers, commission, advising business conduct, mutual warnings)