United States v. Mercer, 165 F.3d 1331 (11th Cir. 1999). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Mercer, 165 F.3d 1331 (11th Cir. 1999). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“in the case of a purchaser of narcotics, we have held that agreement may be inferred when the evidence shows a continuing relationship that results in the repeated transfer of illegal drugs to the purchaser.”
94 citation events (94 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Jason Sanon (ca11, 2018-06-15)
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002 2014 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) United States v. Jason Sanon
11th Cir. · 2018 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
in the case of a purchaser of narcotics, we have held that agreement may be inferred when the evidence shows a continuing relationship that results in the repeated transfer of illegal drugs to the purchaser.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Frederick Anthony Forbes
11th Cir. · 2025 · confidence medium
He relies on United States v. Mercer, 165 F.3d 1331, 1336 (11th Cir. 1999), where we held that the evidence was insufficient to support the defendant’s drug conspiracy conviction without any proof of “a common design or purpose to join [the defendant] with anyone other than govern- ment agents.” Id. at 1336 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Vincent Vo Tran
11th Cir. · 2024 · confidence medium
On frequency, we have held that an “agreement may be in- ferred when the evidence shows a continuing relationship that re- sults in the repeated transfer of illegal drugs to the purchaser.” United States v. Mercer, 165 F.3d 1331, 1335 (11th Cir. 1999).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Andres Mencia
11th Cir. · 2022 · confidence medium
An “agreement may be in- ferred when the evidence shows a continuing relationship that re- sults in the repeated transfer of illegal drugs to the purchaser.” United States v. Mercer, 165 F.3d 1331, 1335 (11th Cir. 1999).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Andres Mencia
11th Cir. · 2021 · confidence medium
An “agreement may be inferred when the evidence shows a continuing relationship that results in the repeated transfer of illegal drugs to the purchaser.” United States v. Mercer, 165 F.3d 1331, 1335 (11th Cir. 1999).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. William Wheat, Jr.
6th Cir. · 2021 · confidence medium
All have adopted some form of a “buyer-seller” rule that refuses to equate a buyer-seller agreement with a conspiratorial “agreement.” See United States v. Hamm, 952 F.3d 728 , 736 (6th Cir. 2020); United States v. Grunsfeld, 558 F.2d 1231, 1235 (6th Cir. 1977); see also United States v. Shelledy, 961 F.3d 1014, 1019 (8th Cir. 2020); Loveland, 825 F.3d at 559–63; United States v. Gallegos, 784 F.3d 1356, 1360 (10th Cir. 2015); United States v. Delgado, 672 F.3d 320, 333 (5th Cir. 2012) (en banc); United States v. Johnson, 592 F.3d 749 , 754–55 (7th Cir. 2010); Hackley, 662 F.3d at …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Jeremy P. Achey
11th Cir. · 2019 · confidence medium
When considering whether a purchaser or seller of drugs was in fact a conspirator, an “agreement may be inferred when the evidence shows a continuing relationship that results in the repeated transfer of illegal drugs to the purchaser.” United States v. Mercer, 165 F.3d 1331, 1335 (11th Cir. 1999).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Enrique Vinales
11th Cir. · 2016 · confidence medium
United States v. Dekle, 165 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 1999); United States v. Mercer, 165 F.3d 1331, 1335 (11th Cir. 1999); United States v. Brazel, 102 F.3d 1120, 1136 (11th Cir. 1997).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Antonio Russell Ford
11th Cir. · 2016 · confidence medium
United States v. Mercer, 165 F.3d 1331, 1333, 1335 (11th Cir.1999).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Frank Davis Moore, Jr. (2×) also: Cited "see"
11th Cir. · 2015 · confidence medium
An “agreement may be inferred when the evidence shows a continuing relationship that results in the repeated transfer of illegal drugs to the purchaser.” United States v. Mercer, 165 F.3d 1331, 1335 (11th Cir.1999) (per curiam).
examined Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Jeremy Bayne Lynch (3×) also: Cited "see"
11th Cir. · 2014 · confidence medium
There is a “critical distinction between a conspiratorial agreement and a buyer-seller transaction.” United States v. Mercer, 165 F.3d 1331, 1335 (11th Cir.1999) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Samuel Posa (2×)
11th Cir. · 2014 · confidence medium
United States v. Mercer, 165 F.3d 1331, 1335 (11th Cir.1999) (per curiam).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Enrique Vinales
11th Cir. · 2014 · confidence medium
United States v. Dekle, 165 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir.1999); United States v. Mercer, 165 F.3d 1331, 1335 (11th Cir.1999); United States v. Brazel, 102 F.3d 1120, 1136 (11th Cir.1997).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Pedro Lazaro ROdriguez
11th Cir. · 2014 · confidence medium
But merely buying drugs from a drug dealer is not punishable as a conspiracy because that “transaction is simply not probative of an agreement to join together to accomplish a criminal objective beyond that already being accomplished by the transaction.” United States v. Mercer, 165 F.3d 1331, 1335 (11th Cir.1999) (internal quotation mark omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Emmanuel Mekowulu (2×) also: Cited "see"
11th Cir. · 2014 · confidence medium
United States v. Mercer, 165 F.3d 1331, 1335 (11th Cir.1999).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Shawanna Reeves
11th Cir. · 2014 · confidence medium
Indeed, in the case of a purchaser of narcotics, an “agreement may be inferred when the evidence shows a continuing relationship that results in the repeated transfer of illegal drugs to the purchaser.” United States v. Mercer, 165 F.3d 1331, 1335 (11th Cir.1999).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Monserrate-Valentin
1st Cir. · 2013 · confidence medium
See, e.g., United States v. Hughes, 505 F.3d 578, 588 (6th Cir.2007) ("[T]he essence of a conspiracy is the agreement to commit the offense and not the commission of the substantive offense.”); United States v. Mercer, 165 F.3d 1331, 1335 (11th Cir.1999) (same); United States v. Tejada, 956 F.2d 1256, 1264 (2d Cir.1992) (same). 9 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Antonio Dawon Woodley
11th Cir. · 2012 · confidence medium
United States v. Mercer, 165 F.3d 1331, 1335 (11th Cir.1999).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Louis Boyd, Jr. (2×)
5th Cir. · 2012 · confidence medium
In Delgado , we addressed the limited scope of the (so-called) “buyer-seller exception” to the crime of conspiracy, stating that it “prevents a single buy-sell agreement, which is necessarily reached in every commercial drug transaction, from automatically becoming a conspiracy to distribute drugs.” Id. at 333 ; see also United States v. Contreras, 249 F.3d 595, 599 (7th Cir.2001) (“[I]n order to establish a conspiracy, ‘[w]hat is necessary and sufficient is proof of an agreement to commit a crime other than the crime that consists of the sale itself.’ ” (citations omitted)); U…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Timothy Terrill Carpenter
11th Cir. · 2012 · confidence medium
See United States v. Brown, 587 F.3d 1082, 1089 (11th Cir.2009) (noting that it “is well-established in this Circuit [that] where there are repeated transactions buying and selling large quantities of illegal drugs, that is sufficient evidence that the participants were involved in a conspiracy”); United States v. Mercer, 165 F.3d 1331, 1335 (11th Cir.1999) (upholding conspiracy conviction where “evidence show[ed] a continuing relationship that resulted] in the repeated transfer of illegal drugs to the purchaser”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Frank Pierre
11th Cir. · 2011 · confidence medium
A. Buyer-Seller Relationship A sale and purchase of drugs does not establish a conspiracy “[w]here the buyer’s purpose is merely to buy and the seller’s purpose is merely to sell, and no prior or contemporaneous understanding exists between the two beyond the sales agreement.” United States v. Mercer, 165 F.3d 1331, 1335 (11th Cir.1999) (quotation omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Yolanda Goodlow
11th Cir. · 2010 · confidence medium
“In the case of a purchaser of narcotics, ... agreement may be inferred when the evidence shows a continuing relationship that results in the repeated transfer of illegal drugs to the purchaser.” United States v. Mercer, 165 F.3d 1331, 1335 (11th Cir.1999).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Roland Pugh Construction, Inc. (2×)
11th Cir. · 2010 · confidence medium
PUGH relies primarily on two drug cases, United States v. Mercer, 165 F.3d 1331, 1335 (11th Cir. 1999) (cash for drugs), and United States v. Dekle, 165 F.3d 826, 830-31 (11th Cir. 1999) (sex for drugs), for the proposition that there is no conspiracy where there is merely a “buy-sell transaction” without an “agreement to join together to accomplish a criminal objective beyond that already being accomplished by the transaction.” Mercer, 165 F.3d at 1335 (quotation marks omitted).
examined Cited as authority (rule) United States v. McNair (3×)
11th Cir. · 2010 · confidence medium
PUGH relies primarily on two drug cases, United States v. Mercer, 165 F.3d 1331, 1335 (11th Cir.1999) (cash for drugs), and United States v. Dekle, 165 F.3d 826, 830-31 (11th Cir.1999) (sex for drugs), for the proposition that there is no conspiracy where there is merely a “buy-sell transaction” without an “agreement to join together to accomplish a criminal objective beyond that already being accomplished by the transaction.” Mercer, 165 F.3d at 1335 (quotation marks omitted).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Ramon Goitia Mora
11th Cir. · 2010 · confidence medium
United States v. Mercer, 165 F.3d 1331, 1333 (11th Cir.1999).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Ramon Goitia Mora
11th Cir. · 2010 · confidence medium
United States v. Mercer, 165 F.3d 1331, 1333 (11th Cir. 1999).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Raul Topete
11th Cir. · 2010 · confidence medium
See United States v. Burroughs, 830 F.2d 1574, 1581 (11th Cir.1987); cf. (noting that “[w]here the buyer’s purpose is merely to buy, the seller’s purpose is merely to sell, and no prior or contemporaneous understanding exists between the two beyond the sales agreement, no conspiracy has been shown”); United States v. Mercer, 165 F.3d 1331, 1335 (11th Cir.1999) (A buy-sell transaction is an “agreement to exchange drugs for money.”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Trevor Nelson
11th Cir. · 2009 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. United States v. Mercer, 165 F.3d 1331, 1336 (11th Cir.1999) (“[Defendant’s] comment that he would go somewhere else if he did not hear from his supplier belies the inference that he had a conspiratorial agreement with a particular supplier.”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Colon, Abraham
7th Cir. · 2008 · confidence medium
The government’s summary describes a routine buyer- seller relationship, as in United States v. Mercer, 165 F.3d 1331, 1336 (11th Cir. 1999), where the court remarked that “the evidence shows simply that his co-defendant Miller knew that Mercer sold drugs and that he had sources from which he could get drugs, that Mercer had a source for drugs and if that source failed he would ‘go somewhere else,’ that he bought quantities of cocaine from some unknown source and sold it to police agents presumably at a profit.” The relationship in the present case was “stan- dardized” only in th…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Colon
7th Cir. · 2008 · confidence medium
The government’s summary describes a routine buyer-seller relationship, as in United States v. Mercer, 165 F.3d 1331, 1336 (11th Cir.1999), where the court remarked that “the evidence shows simply that his co-defendant Miller knew that Mercer sold drugs and that he had sources from which he could get drugs, that Mercer had a source for drugs and if that source failed he would ‘go somewhere else,’ that he bought quantities of cocaine from some unknown source and sold it to police agents presumably at a profit.” The relationship in the present case was “standardized” only in the se…
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Quang Van Nguyen
11th Cir. · 2008 · confidence medium
United States v. Mercer, 165 F.3d 1331, 1335 (11th Cir.1999) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Danyel D. Lawston
11th Cir. · 2007 · confidence medium
Contrarily, we have held that an “agreement may be inferred when the evidence shows a continuing relationship that results in the repeated transfer of illegal drugs to the purchaser.” United States v. Mercer, 165 F.3d 1331, 1335 (11th Cir.1999).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Angel Ruben Castilla
11th Cir. · 2006 · confidence medium
United States v. Mercer, 165 F.3d 1331, 1333 (11th Cir.1999).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Bobby Guy King (2×) also: Cited "see"
11th Cir. · 2006 · confidence medium
We have indicated, however, that an “agreement may be inferred when the evidence shows a continuing relationship that results in the repeated transfer of illegal drugs to the purchaser.” United States v. Mercer, 165 F.3d 1331, 1335 (11th Cir.1999) (per curiam).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Robert Reynolds
11th Cir. · 2006 · confidence medium
United, States v. Mercer, 165 F.3d 1331,1333 (11th Cir.1999).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Gerald Wright (2×)
11th Cir. · 2006 · confidence medium
In distinguishing between a buyer/seller arrangement and a conspiracy, we have indicated that “agreement may be inferred when the evidence shows a continuing relationship that results in the repeated transfer of illegal drugs to the purchaser.” United States v. Mercer, 165 F.3d 1331, 1335 (11th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. John Louis Williams
11th Cir. · 2005 · confidence medium
United States v. Mercer, 165 F.3d 1331, 1335 (11th Cir.1999). ‘Where the buyer’s purpose is merely to buy and the seller’s purpose is merely to sell, and no prior or contemporaneous understanding exists between the two beyond the sales agreement, no conspiracy has been shown.” Id. (quotation omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Franks
6th Cir. · 2004 · confidence medium
Cf. United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57 , 105 S.Ct. 471 , 83 L.Ed.2d 461 (1984) (holding that an inconsistent verdict, in which a jury acquits the defendant of the predicate offense but convicts the defendant of the compound offense, does not require a finding that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction); United States v. Brown, 332 F.3d 363, 372 (6th Cir.2003) (explaining that, in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, this court asks whether, "after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the es…
cited Cited "see" United States v. Reginald Graham
11th Cir. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See id. at 1335 (“[W]e have held that an agreement may be inferred when the evidence shows a continuing relationship that results in the re- peated transfer of illegal drugs to the purchaser.”).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Kite
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Mercer, 165 F.3d 1331 , 1335 (11th Cir.1999) (stating that agreement may be reasonably inferred from ongoing relationship or continued course of conduct bétween individuals 'resulting'in repeated transfer of illegal drugs).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Jamie Ceja
11th Cir. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Mercer, 165 F.3d 1331, 1335 (11th Cir.1999) (allowing jurors to infer a conspiracy from “a continuing relationship that resulted] in the repeated transfer of illegal drugs to the purchaser”).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Chuong Van Duong
11th Cir. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Mercer, 165 F.3d 1331, 1335 (11th Cir.1999) (noting that, an “agreement may be inferred when the evidence shows a continuing relationship that results in the repeated transfer of illegal drugs to the purchaser”).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Hernan Prada
11th Cir. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Mercer, 165 F.3d 1331, 1335 (11th Cir.1999) (explaining that a conspiracy can be shown based on a continuing relationship between a buyer and seller of drugs or a continuing course of conduct); United States v. Beasley, 2 F.3d 1551, 1560-61 (11th Cir.1993) (“[T]he jury could have reasonably inferred a continuing course of conduct between Christopher and Stanberry designed to result in the distribution of cocaine.... ”).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Wilson Jean
11th Cir. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Mercer, 165 F.3d 1331, 1335 (11th Cir.1999) (per curiam).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Edwards
11th Cir. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Mercer, 165 F.3d 1331, 1333 (11th Cir.1999).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Lewis
E.D. Va. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Mercer, 165 F.3d 1331, 1335 (11th Cir.1999).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Lyons
M.D. Fla. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Mercer, 165 F.3d 1331, 1335 (11th Cir.1999).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Jorge Guerra
11th Cir. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Mercer, 165 F.3d 1331, 1335 (11th Cir.1999) (where a “buy-sell” transaction itself constitutes a substantive offense, evidence of that transaction alone is insufficient to support an inference of conspiracy).
cited Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Yamilet Diaz
11th Cir. · 2021 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also United States v. Mercer, 165 F.3d 1331, 1335 (11th Cir. 1999).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Willie Curry Johnson
11th Cir. · 2010 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See United States v. Beasley, 2 F.3d 1551, 1560 (11th Cir.1993) (involving seller who “fronted” cocaine to buyer several times over a short period and knew the buyer was reselling it); see also United States v. Mercer, 165 F.3d 1331, 1335 (11th Cir.1999) (“[AJgreement may be inferred when the evidence shows a continuing relationship that results in the repeated transfer of illegal drugs to the purchaser”). 7 *970 Johnson argues that the government’s evidence proved only buyer-seller relationships and not an agreement to distribute drugs.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Mercer
97-3224.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Jan 25, 1999.
165 F.3d 1331
Published

ANDERSON, Circuit Judge, dissenting:

Although the issue is extremely close, I believe that there is sufficient evidence under our case law.