United States v. Sylvester Purham

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding two transactions, two years apart, lacking in common accomplices and modus operandi, were not sufficiently related for relevant conduct purposes, even though they involved delivery of same drug to same town
• finding temporal gap where the defendant was in jail for almost two years
• “The 2008 transactions generally involved much larger amounts of cocaine than the 2010 transactions.”
• “The 2008 transactions generally involved much larger amounts of cocaine than the 2010 transactions.”
• find‐ ing two transactions, two years apart, lacking in common accomplices and modus operandi, were not sufficiently related for relevant conduct pur‐ poses, even though they involved delivery of same drug to same town
• “The 2008 conduct was not part of the same course of conduct as the 2010 drug conspiracy to which Purham pled guilty.... Neither was the 2008 conduct part of a ‘common scheme or plan’ that included the convicted offenses.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).