Rivera buy cocaine

__________________________

📍 Verified store!

📍 Guarantees! Quality! Reviews!

__________________________

▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼

▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲

Rivera buy cocaine

Fox News host Geraldo Rivera joked that some of his colleagues on The Five were using cocaine while the group laughed over a chyron that read 'brutal cartel kidnapping. During Fox News' The Five , the hosts were discussing the recent kidnapping of four Americans who crossed into Mexico. Shortly after the group drove across the Texas border they were attacked and stopped by gunmen , who then took them hostage. Two of the Americans were found dead by Mexican authorities. The kidnapping is believed to have been a case of mistaken identity. The surviving members of the group, including the mother of six who was seeking the medical procedure, were found at a home in Mexico and have been returned to the US. On The Five , the hosts discussed Mexican drug cartels. This eventually led Mr Rivera to insisting he was 'never into cocaine,' adding it was 'unlike some sitting at this table. He then appears to realise what he has just said on live television and awkwardly motions in a way suggesting he wants to walk back the comment or that it was just a joke. Host Jesse Watters then diffused the situation by saying 'yeah Dana,' and calling her 'Snow White,' playing on Mr Rivera's accusations and jokingly accusing another host, Dana Perino, of using cocaine. Mr Rivera laughs throughout the exchange as Ms Perino plays along, claiming she 'never got caught. It's not the first time Mr Rivera has been associated with cocaine. In , he testified to working with the Broward County Sheriff's Office in a sting operation to catch suspected drug dealers. The operation led to the arrests and convictions of three individuals who tried to sell him cocaine. Hidden camera footage of the exchange was used in special report produced by Mr Rivera, leading defense attorneys for the drug dealers to claim the production element of the sting — like Mr Rivera allegedly pressuring police to rush through the arrest process due to a dying battery in the hidden camera — infringed on the defendants' rights, according to the Associated Press. Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies. Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Premium subscription today. Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in Please refresh your browser to be logged in. Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent Notifications can be managed in browser preferences. Not now Yes please. The latest headlines from our reporters across the US sent straight to your inbox each weekday Your briefing on the latest headlines from across the US. Please enter a valid email address. I would like to be emailed about offers, events and updates from The Independent. Read our privacy policy. Thanks for signing up to the Evening Headlines email. Join our commenting forum Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies Comments. Already subscribed? Log in. Thank you for registering Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in Please refresh your browser to be logged in. US Politics Electric vehicles. Forgotten your password? Want an ad-free experience? View offers.

Geraldo Rivera accuses Fox News colleagues of being ‘into cocaine’ on air

Rivera buy cocaine

Young, Judge. John Earl Dowd, Barry D. Glickman argued , Office of the U. A jury found Enrique Rivera guilty of conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U. The district court imposed a month sentence for the narcotics conspiracy count, and a month sentence for the money laundering count, to run concurrently with each other and with a prison sentence imposed in California in Rivera now contends that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support the jury's verdict that he was a member of a narcotics trafficking conspiracy. We agree, and reverse his conviction on that charge. Rivera supplied cocaine to Derrick Hardin four times between April and July, The transactions began when Hardin, who had been purchasing cocaine in Georgia and Florida, called his friend George Tyson in April of and asked the going rate of cocaine in California. Tyson, who acted as a middleman in the transactions between Rivera and Hardin, informed Hardin that he could buy the drug at a lower price in California than he had been paying in the southeast. Hardin then flew to California to buy a kilogram of cocaine. Tyson and Rickey Franklin, another middleman, met him at the airport and drove with him to Franklin's home where Rivera met them to discuss the sale. After giving Rivera the money, Hardin asked Rivera whether he could buy more cocaine at an even lower price in the future. Rivera responded that, although he might be able to procure the narcotic at a lower price, he could not give a specific quote at that time. Hardin, Franklin, and Tyson immediately went to another location to pick up the drugs, as instructed by Rivera. Hardin again asked Tyson to arrange a sale of one kilogram of cocaine. Tyson and Franklin told Charles that Rivera would be supplying the cocaine, and took Charles to Franklin's house where Rivera met them. Charles paid Tyson and Franklin, and flew back to Indiana where he told Hardin that he had purchased the cocaine from Rivera. Hardin telephoned Tyson a third time and asked whether it was possible to buy five kilograms of cocaine at a better price than the previous one-kilogram purchases. Tyson called back the next day and reported that it was. Hardin went with Franklin and Tyson to Franklin's house. The next day, Hardin went to Rivera's house and discussed the potential five-kilogram purchase. Hardin, unhappy that the price was higher than anticipated, purchased only three kilograms. It is unclear from the record whether he took possession of the three kilograms of cocaine while at Rivera's house or picked it up from another location. Rivera told Hardin that he would look around for a day or two and attempt to locate an additional two kilograms for a lower price. Hardin agreed, and asked Rivera to front him the two kilograms: that is, he asked Rivera to give him the cocaine without requesting immediate payment so he could then sell the drugs on consignment. Rivera refused to do so. Before Rivera contacted him about the additional cocaine but after Rivera had secured it, however, Hardin purchased two kilograms from another supplier. Rivera told Hardin that he was upset that Hardin had used another seller when he had told him that he likely would be able to obtain the cocaine. Hardin replied that he would buy from Rivera the next time if he could give him a favorable price. The two exchanged pager numbers, but made no specific future plans. Hardin paid Tyson and Franklin, and flew back to Indiana. The couriers flew back with the cocaine. Two weeks after the third transaction, Rivera paged Hardin and told him that California cocaine prices were good. Hardin arranged for his brother, already in California, to purchase one kilogram from Rivera, and for a courier to fly from Indiana to bring Charles the money and to return with the drugs. The courier delivered the money to Charles who contacted Rivera. Rivera sent a third person to count the money. Charles and Franklin took the money to Rivera's house, and a man who was there at the time drove to Franklin's house immediately afterward with the cocaine. The courier returned to Indiana with the narcotics, and was arrested at the Evansville Regional Airport. Based on information she gave the police, Hardin was arrested later that day and Charles was arrested the next day at the Evansville airport. Before he left California, Franklin not Rivera fronted Charles nine additional ounces of cocaine. Rivera argues that his conspiracy conviction should be reversed based on two grounds. First, he contends, the evidence showing an agreement to possess with the intent to distribute cocaine was insufficient. Second, the district court gave the jury a misleading and false instruction regarding a drug dealer's participation in a conspiracy, violating his substantial rights. Being part of a buyer-seller agreement cannot alone sustain a conspiracy conviction because the sale has no separate criminal object. United States v. Torres-Ramirez, F. In order to establish that a narcotics dealer was part of a criminal conspiracy, the government must show an agreement to commit a further crime, usually involving the subsequent distribution of drugs by the buyer. Contreras, F. Lechuga, F. Pearson, F. Of course, the government may show such an agreement with circumstantial evidence. Pagan, F. Showing that the buyer purchased a quantity larger than could be used for personal consumption, however, is not enough to show conspiracy on behalf of the seller. Nor is the seller's knowledge of the buyer's illegal activities or resale objectives enough. To determine whether a conspiracy exists between a buyer and seller of illegal narcotics, this Court has looked to the following factors: 1 length of relationship; 2 established method of payment for example, fronting ; 3 the extent to which the transactions were standardized; and 4 the level of mutual trust between buyer and seller. None of these factors is dispositive. Hach, F. Rivera sold cocaine to Hardin four times over a three-month period. This fact is uncontested and incontrovertible. Repeat sales, without more, simply do not place the participants' actions into the realm of conspiracy, however. While we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and defer to the credibility determinations of the trier of fact, Jackson v. Virginia, U. What it does show is a 'series of spot dealings at arm's length between dealers who have no interest in the success of each other's enterprise. The evidence that the government presented is just too modest to support the conspiracy charge found by the district court. There is no evidence that Rivera fronted cocaine to Hardin. He expressly refused to do so. No other established method of payment existed that suggests Rivera's participation in a conspiracy. The argument that the government advances-- that Hardin sold the cocaine that he bought from Rivera and reinvested the profits into larger purchases from Rivera, therefore an established method of payment existed--is unviable. If that were the case, every repeat seller would also have an established method of payment and two of the factors of conspiracy would be shown from the mere fact of repeated dealings. Factors one and two are distinct, however, and again, this Court has held that mere repeated dealing, on its own, does not establish a conspiracy. Furthermore, there is nothing to support the contention that the transactions were standardized; they involved different people, different prices, different locations, and different methods of payment and delivery. The government did not show a high level of trust between Rivera and Hardin. While the evidence does show that Hardin placed a limited amount of trust in Rivera--he or his brother twice paid first and received delivery of the cocaine later in the day--'many a buyer in an ordinary commercial sale pays first and receives delivery later. Evidence of such a system does not suggest a level of trust that would allow the fact finder to infer a conspiracy. Furthermore, if it shows any trust at all, it is of the non-mutual variety. If anything, Rivera's requiring payment before delivery of the cocaine shows a lack of trust in Hardin, Tyson, Franklin, and the other charged co-conspirators. In short, the evidence in this case shows none of the plus factors necessary to infer the evolution from a mere-buyer-seller arrangement to a conspiracy. To hold otherwise would directly contradict Contreras, a case decided this year which we are unwilling to revisit. The government argues that in that case, the seller did not offer the buyer a favorable price on future sales and that the prolonged cooperation shown here did not exist. Rivera merely invited Hardin to deal in the future. The government showed only that Rivera wanted Hardin's business--that is indicative of a buyer-seller relationship, not a conspiracy. Moreover, Rivera did not cooperate with Hardin in any way not present in the buyer-seller relationship in Contreras. There were multiple sales over a number of months in both cases although even that evidence is not as strong in the present case: Rivera sold cocaine to Hardin four times over three months. Contreras sold cocaine to a buyer ten times over six to ten months. The cases are not distinguishable in any meaningful way. The government convincingly showed that Rivera is guilty of distributing narcotics. Unfortunately, Rivera was not charged with drug distribution because that crime could not be prosecuted in Indiana; proper venue would have been in California only. Rodriguez-Moreno, U. A conspiracy conviction is not a simple substitute for a drug distribution conviction. No matter how overwhelmingly the government showed Rivera's participation in drug sales, it did not show his agreement to join in a further crime. Rivera's conspiracy conviction is therefore reversed. His money laundering conviction, of course, still stands. Although our holding rests on the insufficiency of the evidence, we also agree with Rivera that the district court's jury instruction number 12 was misleading. The instruction read:. In order to find Enrique Rivera as part of a conspiracy, you need to find he made an agreement to join the conspiracy to distribute 5 or more kilograms of a substance of mixture containing a detectable amount of cocaine. An agreement can be inferred in several instances. For example, an agreement can be inferred when:. As discussed above, this Court has held that none of the factors used to determine whether a conspiracy existedbetween a seller and buyer is sufficient, standing alone, to support a conspiracy conviction. The instruction told the jury that a conspiracy could be inferred either when a dealer fronts money or when he participates in multiple sales. Our case law says otherwise, as cited above. Also, this Court has held that ' \[d\]istrict judges should inform juries that repeated transactions do not constitute a conspiracy. Gee, F. Thomas, F. The court in the instant case informed the jury of the opposite. The instruction could likely have misled the jury into finding a conspiracy when the government did not supply facts to support the elements of that crime. We review the instruction for plain error. Mims, 92 F. To find plain error, the instruction must have affected Rivera's substantial rights. That is, we must determine that the error 'substantially affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Olano, U. Here, the district court's error had serious potential to affect the outcome of the case. Therefore, even if the evidence was adequate to support the conspiracy conviction, this instruction may have undermined the essential fairness and integrity of the trial, man dating reversal of the conspiracy conviction. However, because the evidence was not adequate, as shown above, we need not make such a finding. Because the government failed to produce evidence showing that Rivera agreed 'to commit some other crime beyond the crime constituted by the \[sale\] itself,' Lechuga, F. Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes. Enrique Rivera, Defendant-appellant, F. Julie A. Flaum, Chief Judge. Enter Your Email. Justia Legal Resources. Find a Lawyer. Law Schools. US Federal Law. US State Law. Other Databases. Marketing Solutions.

Rivera buy cocaine