In the case of United States v. Miguel Gonzales, Orlenis Hernandez-Diaz and Mario Perez in 1996, the defendants were charged with conspiracy to distribute cocaine and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. The three men had been arrested after a search warrant was executed at an apartment where they were found along with large amounts of cash and drugs. They argued that there was insufficient evidence for their conviction as well as challenging the validity of the search warrant used by law enforcement officers during their arrest. However, upon review, it was determined that there was probable cause for issuing the search warrant based on information from a reliable informant who had provided accurate information in previous cases. Furthermore, given substantial evidence including recorded phone conversations discussing drug transactions and physical evidence such as money counting machines typically associated with drug trafficking operations found at their residence supported their convictions.

The dissenting opinion in the case of United States v. Miguel Gonzales, Orlenis Hernandez-Diaz and Mario Perez disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the law regarding conspiracy to distribute drugs. The dissent argued that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that all three defendants were involved in a single, overarching conspiracy as charged by the government. Instead, they believed that at most, each defendant may have been involved in separate conspiracies or individual drug transactions but not one large-scale operation together. They also took issue with how certain evidences were admitted during trial and felt it prejudiced against fair judgment for defendants. Therefore, they would have reversed their convictions on these grounds.