Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-11276/USCOURTS-ca5-14-11276-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Antonio De Jesus Ramirez-Olvera
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-11276

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ANTONIO DE JESUS RAMIREZ-OLVERA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:14-CR-133-1

Before WIENER, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge:*

Antonio De Jesus Ramirez-Olvera pled guilty to possessing with the 

intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 

(b)(1)(B). The district court sentenced him to 240 months—ten years below the 

bottom of the applicable guidelines range. He now challenges that sentence, 

arguing that the district court erred by not distinguishing between 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 22, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-11276 Document: 00513202930 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/22/2015
d-methamphetamine and l-methamphetamine when calculating the quantity 

of methamphetamine (actual) attributable to him. We affirm. 

We review de novo the district court’s interpretation of the Sentencing 

Guidelines. United States v. Moore, 733 F.3d 161, 162 (5th Cir. 2013). “When 

the language of the guideline is unambiguous, the plain meaning of that 

language is controlling unless it creates an absurd result.” Id. at 162. Also, 

“[t]he Guidelines commentary is authoritative unless it violates the 

Constitution or a federal statute, or is inconsistent with, or a plainly erroneous 

reading of, that guideline.” Id. at 162-63 (citation and internal quotation 

marks omitted).

Ramirez-Olvera's presentence report, prepared by a probation officer, 

recommended that, for guideline computations, Ramirez-Olvera should be held

responsible for 7.7 grams of methamphetamine (actual). To reach this figure, 

the probation officer relied on the results of DEA laboratory reports that 

analyzed the purity of three packages of methamphetamine seized from 

Ramirez-Olvera’s house and cars. Ramirez-Olvera objected to the quantity 

recommendation on the ground that the laboratory reports did not distinguish 

between d-methamphetamine and l-methamphetamine. The district court 

overruled the objection.

Ramirez-Olvera argues that the district court needed to distinguish 

between d-methamphetamine and l-methamphetamine when determining the 

quantity of methamphetamine (actual) attributable to him.

D-methamphetamine and l-methamphetamine are “stereoisomers of 

methamphetamine; they consist of identical molecules differently arranged.” 

United States v. Acklen, 47 F.3d 739, 742 (5th Cir. 1995). Unlike 

d-methamphetamine, l-methamphetamine “produces little or no physiological 

effect when ingested.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The 

 Case: 14-11276 Document: 00513202930 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/22/2015
sentencing guidelines provide a base offense level of 38 for an offense involving 

4.5 kilograms or more of methamphetamine (actual); they do not explicitly 

distinguish between d- and l-methamphetamine. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines 

Manual § 2D1.1(c)(1) (2014). 

A 1995 amendment to § 2D1.1 indicates that courts need not distinguish 

between d-methamphetamine and l-methamphetamine when determining the 

quantity of methamphetamine (actual) attributable to a defendant. That 

amendment—Amendment 518—altered the drug equivalency table in § 2D1.1. 

Before the amendment, the table distinguished between methamphetamine, 

methamphetamine (actual), ice, and l-methamphetamine by assigning each 

substance a different marihuana-equivalent. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines 

Manual, § 2D1.1, cmt. n.10 (Nov. 1995). Amendment 518 deleted the table’s 

reference to l-methamphetamine. See id. app. C, vol. I, amend. 518 (Nov. 1995). 

The Sentencing Commission explained the amendment as follows: 

[T]his amendment deletes the distinction between d- and 

l-methamphetamine in the Drug Equivalency Tables in the 

Commentary to § 2D1.1. L-methamphetamine, which is a rather 

weak form of methamphetamine, is rarely seen and is not made 

intentionally, but rather results from a botched attempt to produce 

d-methamphetamine. Under this amendment, 

l-methamphetamine would be treated the same as

d-methamphetamine (i.e., as if an attempt to manufacture or 

distribute d-methamphetamine). Currently, unless the 

methamphetamine is specifically tested to determine its form, 

litigation can result over whether the methamphetamine is 

l-methamphetamine or d-methamphetamine. . . . Under this 

amendment, all forms of methamphetamine are treated alike, 

thereby simplifying guideline application.

Id. In an unpublished opinion, we have relied on Amendment 518 to hold that 

“any distinction” between d-methamphetamine and l-methamphetamine is

now “immaterial” when calculating drug quantity under the guidelines. United 

States v. Beltran, 91 F. App’x 349 (5th Cir. 2004). We conclude that, in light of 

 Case: 14-11276 Document: 00513202930 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/22/2015
Amendment 518, the district court did not need to distinguish between 

d-methamphetamine and l-methamphetamine when calculating the quantity 

of methamphetamine (actual) attributable to Ramirez-Olvera.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 14-11276 Document: 00513202930 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/22/2015