Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02292/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02292-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Luis Leonardo Molina-Cuartas
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

F,ILED 

United States Coprt <?f Appeals Tenth Ctremt 

DEC 2 0 1991 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ROBERT L. HOECKER 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

v. ) No. 90-2292 

) 

LUIS LEONARDO MOLINA-CUARTAS, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO 

(D.C. No. CR-90-304-HB) 

Submitted on the briefs:* 

Clerk 

William L. Lutz, United States Attorney, and Louis E. Valencia, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Albuquerque, New Mexico, for 

Plaintiff-Appellee. 

Richard C. Cauble, Las Cruces, New Mexico, for 

Appellant. 

DefendantBefore HOLLOWAY and BRORBY, Circuit Judges, and KANE,** District 

Judge. 

BRORBY, Circuit Judge. 

* After exam1n1ng the briefs and appellate record, this panel has 

determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); lOth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

** The Honorable John L. Kane, United States District Judge for 

the District of Colorado, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 90-2292 Document: 01019335869 Date Filed: 12/20/1991 Page: 1 
Mr. Molina-Cuartas (Defendant) appeals his criminal sentence 

alleging the trial court erred by using unreliable information for 

sentencing purposes. All issues revolve around the weight of the 

contraband. We hold the sentencing court's finding of weight was 

supported by a preponderance of the evidence and affirm. 

Defendant pleaded guilty to possession with intent to 

distribute less than fifty kilograms of marijuana and aiding and 

abetting in violation of 21 u.s.c. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(D) and 

18 u.s.c. § 2. Section 201.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines 

ascribes an offense level of 20 to possession of over forty 

kilograms of marijuana and an offense level of 18 if less than 

forty. A presentence report prepared by the probation office 

listed the gross weight of the marijuana as 43.55 kilograms (96 

pounds) and the net weight of the marijuana as 41.45 kilograms 

(91.2 pounds). 1 In determining the net weight, the probation 

office reduced the gross weight by five per cent to account for 

packaging. Defendant requested the court hold an evidentiary 

hearing to more accurately determine the net weight of the 

marijuana believing it to be less than forty kilograms. The 

district court held a hearing, affirmed the presentence report and 

imposed sentence based on calculation of net weight as described 

in the presentence report. 

When the Government confiscated the marijuana from Defendant, 

1 To calculate the number of kilograms in a pound of marijuana 

multiply the number of pounds of marijuana by .4536. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-2292 Document: 01019335869 Date Filed: 12/20/1991 Page: 2 
the DEA officer weighed thirty-eight bundles of marijuana wrapped 

in plastic wrap at the Border Patrol office and again at the DEA 

office. At both places the gross weight of the marijuana was 

43.55 kilograms (96 pounds). The marijuana was then stored in a 

bunker facility at the White Sands Missile Range. 

Before sentencing, Defendant asked that the marijuana be 

reweighed to determine its exact net weight. 2 Defendant's witness 

at the reweighing testified that a total of thirty-six bundles 

were weighed. At the reweighing, the gross weight of the 

marijuana was 37.01 kilograms (81.6 pounds). An estimate of the 

wrapping was obtained by taking an average sized bundle and 

weighing it, weighing the wrapping and then multiplying by the 

total number of bundles. This amount was then subtracted from the 

gross weight taken at the reweighing. At that time, and based 

upon this procedure, the net weight of the marijuana was 35.7 

kilograms (approximately 79 pounds). 

Because of the discrepancies between the two weights, the 

court held an evidentiary hearing to determine the net weight of 

the marijuana for sentencing purposes. At the evidentiary 

hearing, a DEA agent testified both scales used at the time of 

seizure were certified by the Bureau of Standards. The agent also 

testified plastic wrap is a light-weight marijuana packaging 

material. The bulk evidence custodian at the White Sands Missile 

2 The 247 grams which had been extracted for analysis was 

calculated into the determination of net weight. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-2292 Document: 01019335869 Date Filed: 12/20/1991 Page: 3 
Range facility testified that based on his personal knowledge, 

marijuana stored in that facility loses some of its weight due to 

dehydration. He testified he had been the bulk drug evidence 

custodian for the past twelve months. During that time he was 

responsible for evidence in over 200 cases and at one time had 

eight tons of marijuana in his possession. He also testified that 

during the summer the average temperature in the facility ranges 

from 80 to over 90 degrees. The inventory control procedure at 

the facility requires him to weigh marijuana when it comes into 

his custody and again when it is removed to be destroyed. He is 

then able to compare those weights. He has seen even dry 

marijuana lose weight during storage but has never known marijuana 

to gain weight during its storage in the facility. In his 

opinion, a ten pound loss from a 96-pound seizure stored in that 

facility over the summer months would not be inconsistent with his 

comparison data. 

At the hearing, Defendant argued: (1) the reweighing 

calculation was the only reliable evidence of the net weight of 

the marijuana; (2) the Government's calculation resulting in net 

weight in excess of forty kilograms was based on estimates and 

extrapolation; (3) the five per cent estimate of wrapping was an 

arbitrary number resulting in a weight in excess of forty 

kilograms; (4) where the net weight is only 1.45 kilograms over 

the cut-off he was entitled to the benefit of the doubt where the 

figure was based on speculation; and (5) the Government had the 

burden to establish the weight of the marijuana, yet it brought no 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-2292 Document: 01019335869 Date Filed: 12/20/1991 Page: 4 
expert testimony to substantiate its claim the marijuana lost 

weight due to dehydration. 

The Government contended Defendant made no showing the 

original weight was inaccurate. It further argued the DEA agent's 

testimony regarding loss of weight due to dehydration was based on 

his personal knowledge and experience as bulk custodian. The 

Government attacked defense counsel's estimate of net weight which 

was based on dehydrated weight rather than the weight at the time 

the marijuana was seized. The Government asserted it did not 

demonstrate weight in this case by extrapolation but by actual 

measurement at the time of seizure. 

The trial court affirmed the presentence report as to the 

weight of the marijuana based on the original weight calculation. 

The court found the first weighing was probably accurate as two 

weights taken on different scales yielded the same results. The 

court further found the estimate of five per cent of the gross 

weight for this type of packaging would be a reasonable figure. 

The court found the reweighing unreliable because all the bundles 

were not reweighed, and it was satisfied the marijuana was bound 

to lose some weight through dehydration during storage. 

Ultimately, however, the court based its finding on the fact the 

two original measurements were consistent and disregarded the 

testimony concerning weight loss due to dehydration. Thus, the 

trial court found the marijuana to have a net weight of 41.45 

kilograms (91.27 pounds) a net weight in excess of the forty 

-5-

Appellate Case: 90-2292 Document: 01019335869 Date Filed: 12/20/1991 Page: 5 
kilograms cut-off. The trial court then imposed sentence based on 

this finding. 

Defendant appeals asserting the trial court erred by using 

unreliable information as its basis for finding the net weight of 

the marijuana exceeded forty kilograms. By basing its sentence on 

unreliable information, Defendant claims the trial court violated 

his due process rights in sentencing. Defendant asserts as error: 

(1) the weight relied on by the trial judge did not calculate net 

weight and the court should have used the calculation done at the 

reweighing; (2) the Government based its weight calculation on 

extrapolations and speculations unsubstantiated by expert 

testimony; and (3) the Government claims two bundles were missing 

from the reweighing without explaining their whereabouts. He 

contends evidence of net weight was presented at the evidentiary 

hearing and the judge should have used this weight. The net 

weight evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing was below the 

statutory cut-off of forty kilograms and would have resulted in an 

offense level two levels below that used by the trial court. 

At issue in this case is the proper net weight of marijuana 

to be used for sentencing purposes. The trial judge used the 

original gross weight reduced by five per cent for packaging 

material. The Defendant claims the judge should have used the 

gross weight measured at the reweighing reduced by an estimate of 

the packaging materials. 

-6-

Appellate Case: 90-2292 Document: 01019335869 Date Filed: 12/20/1991 Page: 6 
The district court's factual findings concerning the amount 

of drugs involved in the Defendant's conduct are reviewed for 

clear error. United States v. Padilla, 947 F.2d 893 (lOth Cir. 

1991). We do not find the district court's reliance on the 

initial weight less five per cent for packaging clearly erroneous. 

In order to impose a sentence based on a quantity of drugs, 

the trial court's factual findings must be determined by a 

preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Shewmaker, 936 

F.2d 1124, 1129 (lOth Cir. 1991), petition for cert. filed (U.S. 

Sept. 23, 1991) (No. 91-5922); United States v. Easterling, 921 

F.2d 1073, 1077 (lOth Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 2066 

(1991). If given several plausible estimates as to replicated 

quantities of drugs, the quantity determined by the district court 

must rest on the preponderance of the evidence. United States v. 

Reid, 911 F.2d 1456, 1462 (lOth Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 111 S. 

Ct. 990 (1991). 

The district court determined the net weight by subtracting 

five per cent from the gross weight of the marijuana measured at 

the time it was seized. The Government introduced evidence this 

original gross weight was accurate. Two identical weights were 

measured on two different scales at the time the marijuana was 

seized. Both scales used were calibrated. Thus, the original 

gross weight of the marijuana has been determined by a 

preponderance of the evidence. The Government then brought forth 

testimony that plastic wrap is a light-weight marijuana packaging 

-7-

Appellate Case: 90-2292 Document: 01019335869 Date Filed: 12/20/1991 Page: 7 
material. Based on this testimony, the five per cent reduction in 

weight for packaging seems reasonably related to the type of 

packaging used on the marijuana. 

Notwithstanding the Government's evidence, Defendant claims 

the trial court should have relied upon the evidence he presented 

at the evidentiary hearing, namely, the estimate of packaging 

materials based on the weight of some of the actual packaging 

material. Testimony differed as to the net weight of the 

marijuana based on these figures. The lowest net weight testified 

to was 35.34 kilograms (77.9 pounds). This was determined from a 

gross weight of 37.01 kilograms (81.6 pounds) and therefore 

represented a reduction of 1.67 kilograms (3.7 pounds), or 4.5 per 

cent, for packaging. Although only thirty-six bundles were 

reweighed, the estimates for the packaging were calculated based 

on thirty-eight bundles. A five per cent reduction for packaging 

would have resulted in a 1.85 kilograms (4.08 pounds) reduction. 

Thus, a five per cent reduction is reasonable based on a 

preponderance of the evidence. 

Even using Defendant's estimates, a reduction of the gross 

weight for packaging results in a net weight in excess of forty 

kilograms: if 1.67 kilograms were subtracted from the more 

reliable gross weight measured at the time the DEA agents seized 

the marijuana, the net weight would be 41.67 kilograms -- still in 

excess of forty kilograms. Therefore, the finding that the 

original marijuana gross weight reduced by five per cent to 

-8-

Appellate Case: 90-2292 Document: 01019335869 Date Filed: 12/20/1991 Page: 8 
account for packaging results in a net weight in excess of forty 

kilograms is substantiated by a preponderance of the evidence. 

Furthermore, the Government presented evidence the reweight 

measurements offered by the Defendant were unreliable. The 

marijuana was reweighed on October 10, 1990 after having been 

stored in the facility over the summer. At the reweighing, the 

agents calculated the net weight of the marijuana by subtracting 

the weight of the packaging materials from the gross weight as 

determined at the reweighing. The Government presented the bulk 

custodian's testimony that he had observed marijuana lose weight 

when stored in the facility during the summer. Furthermore, 

Defendant's own witness testified only thirty-six of thirty-eight 

bundles were reweighed. Based on the evidence that not all the 

bundles were reweighed and that marijuana could lose weight 

through dehydration, the trial court determined the reweight 

calculations were not reliable. This finding is supported by a 

preponderance of the evidence and hence is not clearly erroneous.

3 

In United States v. Donaldson, 915 F.2d 612, 614 (lOth Cir. 

1990), we affirmed the district court's determination of a 

quantity of marijuana. In that case, both sides presented 

evidence as to the weight of the marijuana. The district court 

agreed with the Government's weight assessment. We upheld the 

3 In light of Defendant's proffered packaging estimates, 

Defendant's claim the Government cannot establish the weight of 

the marijuana through estimates and extrapolation is inaccurate 

and requires no further discussion. 

-9-

Appellate Case: 90-2292 Document: 01019335869 Date Filed: 12/20/1991 Page: 9 
district court's findings where we were not "left with the 

definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made." We 

come to the same conclusion based on the facts of this case. 

Defendant contends the trial court improperly considered 

evidence of dehydration where the evidence derived from the 

Government's own agent and where the Government proffered no 

expert testimony on the matter. This argument is unpersuasive. 

In Shewmaker, the defendant argued the court committed error 

when quantifying the amount of marijuana involved. After an 

evidentiary hearing on the issue, the Shewmaker court determined 

an amount based on the presentence report and testimony from an 

agent who participated in the investigation. The defendant, as in 

this case, claimed the evidence relied upon by the judge lacked 

the minimum indicia of reliability and was not sufficient to prove 

the quantity of marijuana involved. We recognized, however, the 

judge can consider "'any reliable source of information.'" 

Shewmaker, 936 F.2d at 1129 (quoting United States v. Beaulieu, 

893 F.2d 1177, 1180 (lOth Cir.), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 3302 

(1990)). 

In Shewmaker, agents estimated the quantity of harvested 

marijuana by extrapolating the density of unharvested marijuana 

plants left in the field. The agents did not use consistent 

methods for estimating quantity. This court found the trial court 

could use these different quantity calculations as they were 

-10-

Appellate Case: 90-2292 Document: 01019335869 Date Filed: 12/20/1991 Page: 10 
"sufficiently reliable so as to make a preponderance finding." 

Id. at 1130. We found the quantities were difficult to estimate 

but the methods used were reasonably related to the conditions 

surrounding the quantity of marijuana. Id. 

In the evidentiary hearing in the present case, the 

Government established the knowledge and experience of the bulk 

evidence custodian through testimony. He testified based on his 

experience marijuana lost weight when stored in the facility. 

This testimony was reasonably related to the conditions 

surrounding the quantity of marijuana. We find this testimony 

"sufficiently reliable so as to make a preponderance finding." 

Id. 4 

Finally, we are greatly disturbed, as is the Defendant, about 

the two missing bundles of marijuana. The Government has brought 

forth no concrete explanation for their disappearance. We find 

this careless disregard for evidence preservation deplorable and 

suggest to the Government it should not allow this sort of 

disappearance to be repeated. However, the defendant bears the 

burden to show bad faith on the part of the government when 

evidence is destroyed. Donaldson, 915 F.2d at 614. Because the 

Defendant has not made such a showing our hands are tied. 5 

4 Besides, the trial judge did not base his decision on the 

evidence presented by the drug agent but stated that the court 

disregarded that evidence when reaching its decision. Defendant's 

argument is therefore meritless. 

5 The trial judge was satisfied the missing bundles had been sent 

to the laboratory in Dallas. 

-11-

Appellate Case: 90-2292 Document: 01019335869 Date Filed: 12/20/1991 Page: 11 
c r 

The factual findings of the trial court upon which sentence 

was imposed are AFFIRMED. 

-12-

Appellate Case: 90-2292 Document: 01019335869 Date Filed: 12/20/1991 Page: 12