Moreover, the “procuring agent” defense is generally not applicable if the defendant retains or receives part of the controlled substance involved in the transaction for his or her own personal use. Love v. State, 111 Nev. 545, 893 P.2d 376 (1995). The defendant in the case now before us had a personal interest in the drug transaction. The defendant supported his habit by acting as a middleman in drug transactions. He was not merely a disinterested or benevolent conduit for the buyer in this case. The defendant performed the transaction to obtain a “cut” of the cocaine. His actions were that of a drug-dealing middleman even though his “cut” or benefit from the transaction was in the form of drugs rather than in monetary gain. See Galbreath v. State, 187 Tenn. 669, 216 S.W.2d 689 (1948) (<HOLDING>). The defendant had multiple former
holding that the double jeopardy clause did not bar charging the defendant with both receipt and possession of child pornography where the defendant was charged with possessing a set of files that did not form the basis for a separate receipt count holding oral statements by company sufficient to require disclosure of relevant financial information under truitt holding that appellants specific factual denial of receipt was sufficient evidence to defeat the presumption of receipt raised by a docket entry showing mailing holding that service of notice of lien statements on homeowners was sufficient even though endorsement stated return receipt requested instead of return receipt requested showing address where delivered where service was handled in same manner and where homeowners received and signed for address shown on return receipt moreover actual notice was sufficient under statute holding receipt of cab fare sufficient financial interest