seller of a controlled substance does not establish a conspiracy. There was no error. In Mitchell v. State, 363 Md. 130, 767 A.2d 844 (2001), the Court of Appeals summarized the requirements for proof of conspiracy. A criminal conspiracy consists of the combination of two or more persons to accomplish an unlawful purpose, or to accomplish a lawful purpose by unlawful means. The conspiracy may be shown by circumstantial evidence from which a common design may be inferred. To demonstrate that there has been a meeting of the minds — a unity of purpose and design — the State must show that: (1) the parties to the conspiracy gave the matter sufficient thought, however brief or impulsive, to appreciate or articulate the objective of the conspiracy; and (2) the parties, by word or th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1128, 117 S.Ct. 2529,
holding that defendant charged with conspiracy to manufacture marijuana and possessing marijuana with intent to distribute was not entitled to specific buyerseller instruction even though support for such instruction existed because court gave a complete instruction reciting all the elements of conspiracy holding that defendant was not entitled to buyerseller instruction in drug conspiracy prosecution given evidence that defendant played numerous roles in the conspiracy and that massive amounts of cocaine were involved holding that the evidence did not plausibly support a buyerseller instruction because overwhelming evidence showed that defendants agreed to import drugs with the intent to distribute them and engaged in repeated transactions of large quantities of narcotic drugs for resale holding that trial court did not err in refusing to give instruction that mere buyerseller relationship in single transaction does not alone support a conspiracy conviction where there was evidence of advanced planning among the alleged conspirators to deal in wholesale quantities of drugs obviously not intended for personal use holding that defendant was not entitled to buyerseller instruction despite defendants contention that buyerseller transactions were the only contacts between defendant and alleged coconspirator because the government adduced far more evidence than the prior drug purchases to establish the conspiracy and instructions as a whole did not allow jury to convict on mere buyerseller theory