United States v. Parlin

── United States v. Parlin ── Case No.: 24-1297 Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Date: March 11, 2026 Category: General United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 24-1297 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. JACOB PARLIN, Defendant, Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Leo T. Sorokin, U.S. District Judge] Before Montecalvo, Lynch, and Kayatta, Circuit Judges. Jonathan Mermin and Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau & Pachios, LLP on brief for appellant. Donald C. Lockhart, Assistant U.S. Attorney, and Joshua S. Levy, U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee. March 11, 2026  KAYATTA, Circuit Judge. Jacob Parlin was convicted by a jury of two drug counts charging him with distribution of and possession with intent to distribute certain quantities of methamphetamine and conspiracy to do the same. His defense at trial was that he was a user but not a distributor. On appeal, he argues first that the trial court erred by permitting a police officer to testify as a lay witness that the nearly two pounds of methamphetamine uncovered in his vehicle was inconsistent with personal use. Second, he contends that, without the police officer's challenged testimony, the evidence was insufficient to show intent to distribute. For the reasons that follow, we affirm Parlin's conviction on both counts. I. Parlin came to the attention of authorities in early March 2021, when Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents began wiretapping the phone of a man named Harry Tam, who was suspected of receiving narcotics including methamphetamine. That wiretap captured phone calls between Tam, Parlin, and a third individual named Vincent Duong that seemed to discuss the transport and sale of narcotics. On March 12, 2021, acting on captured calls between Tam and Duong, including one where Duong referred to receiving a "pound" for $3,500, officers pulled Duong over and seized two packages, each containing a little over two pounds of methamphetamine. - 2 -  Two days later, on March 14, Tam called Parlin and bemoaned the loss of a "big deal," which was "discouraging" and made him want to "stop." Parlin urged Tam to continue, and Tam agreed, assuring him: "I'm invested with you." Parlin then updated Tam on a man named Steve, whom the two had discussed a week prior. On that earlier call, Parlin told Tam that Steve had "undermine[d]" and "undercut" Parlin "behind [his] back" with "[Parlin's] people way up there in Maine,"1 but said he had "a plan" to deal with Steve and that Parlin and Tam could "fucking make some money." Tam responded that he would "hit [Parlin] with lower pricing." Later that same evening, Tam called Duong to tell him he had offered Parlin lower prices because Steve had "undercut [Parlin] behind his back to his customers," and Duong agreed they should "help [Parlin] out [to] get all his customers back." On March 14, Parlin updated Tam that, since their earlier conversation, he had gone "out there" to where Steve had "seen [Parlin's] people" and "[t]his dude [Steve] is exactly what you said . . . and it's all fucking cut."2 Tam promised Parlin "[w]e 1 A DEA agent testified at trial that, based on her training and experience, "Mr. Parlin was complaining to Mr. Tam that someone undercut . . . him in prices." On appeal, Parlin does not challenge the agent's interpretation or the admission of this testimony. 2 A DEA-trained officer testified at trial that "cutting" a drug refers to "diluting the puri