Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-00-03007/USCOURTS-caDC-00-03007-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Jerome Young
Appellant

Document Text:

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued February 13, 2001 Decided May 11, 2001

No. 00-3007

United States of America,

Appellee

v.

Jerome Young, a/k/a Akbar Muhammed,

Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 89cr00387-02)

A. J. Kramer, Federal Public Defender, argued the cause

and filed the briefs for appellant.

Thomas S. Rees, Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued the cause

for appellee. With him on the brief were Wilma A. Lewis,

U.S. Attorney at the time the brief was filed, John R. Fisher,

Mary-Patrice Brown and John Phillip Dominguez, Assistant

U.S. Attorneys.

USCA Case #00-3007 Document #595302 Filed: 05/11/2001 Page 1 of 11
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Before: Henderson, Randolph, and Garland, Circuit

Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge Garland.

Garland, Circuit Judge: In this appeal, Jerome Young

challenges a criminal sentence he received in 1991 for conspiracy to manufacture and distribute phencyclidine (PCP).

Although Young did not appeal from this sentence when it

was first imposed, he now seeks a sentence reduction based

on a subsequent amendment to the United States Sentencing

Guidelines (U.S.S.G.). The district court denied Young's

motion, concluding that the amendment did not affect the

manner in which Young's sentence was calculated. We agree

and therefore affirm.

I

On December 4, 1989, Young pled guilty to one count of

conspiring to manufacture and distribute 100 grams or more

of pure PCP, in violation of 21 U.S.C. ss 846 and

841(b)(1)(A)(iv), and to one count of using or carrying a

firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of

18 U.S.C. s 924(c). Judgment at 1. Young's initial sentencing hearing occurred on February 26, 1990. The presentence

report (PSR) stated that Young and a co-conspirator were

engaged in a PCP manufacturing operation, the first stage of

which had produced a quantity of piperidinocyclohexanecarbonitrile (PCC).1 The report stated--as

Young had acknowledged during his plea hearing--that at the

time of his arrest Young was in a van, travelling to a location

where he could acquire a quantity of phenylmagnesiumchloride (PMC), a chemical he planned to use to convert the PCC

into PCP. 1990 PSR p 12; Change of Plea Tr. at 23, 28-32.

The police stopped the van, arrested Young, and seized 682

grams of PCC crystals, a bottle containing 35 grams of pure

PCP, and a Walther PPK handgun. According to the presentence report, the 682 grams of PCC, when combined with

__________

1 See generally United States v. Gates, 807 F.2d 1075, 1078 (D.C.

Cir. 1986) (describing PCP manufacturing process).

USCA Case #00-3007 Document #595302 Filed: 05/11/2001 Page 2 of 11
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

PMC, would have yielded 862 grams of pure PCP. 1990 PSR

p 13.2

The presentence report calculated the weight of the controlled substance involved in Young's crime by adding the 35

grams of pure PCP seized from Young to the 862 grams of

pure PCP that could have been manufactured from the PCC

in his possession, producing a total of 897 grams of pure PCP.

1990 PSR p 22; see United States v. Young, 89-CR-00307-02,

slip op. at 2 (D.D.C. Dec. 15, 1999). The Drug Quantity Table

of Sentencing Guideline s 2D1.1(c) specified a base offense

level of 34 for a "mixture or substance" containing 300-1000

grams of pure PCP. See U.S.S.G. s 2D1.1(c) (1989); id. at

n.*. To this, the district court applied a two-level upward

adjustment for use of a special skill, U.S.S.G. s 3B1.3 (1989),

and a two-level downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility, U.S.S.G. s 3E1.1(a) (1989), leaving Young's offense level unchanged at 34. 1990 Sentencing Tr. at 6, 24.

Based on that offense level, and on the presentence report's

calculation of Young's criminal history category, the district

court sentenced Young to 188 months' imprisonment on the

PCP charge and to a mandatory consecutive term of 60

months on the firearm charge. 1990 Sentencing Tr. at 24-26.

Defendant agreed with the presentence report's description

of his offense conduct, and objected neither to the finding

that his crime involved 897 grams of pure PCP, nor to the

conclusion that this produced a base offense level of 34. 1990

PSR p 18; id. at 16. He did object, however, to the two-level

upward adjustment for use of a special skill, and ultimately

prevailed on that point on appeal. See United States v.

__________

2 The district court's opinion attributes this calculation to the

Drug Enforcement Agency chemist who analyzed the seized chemicals. United States v. Young, 89-CR-00307-02, slip op. at 2

(D.D.C. Dec. 15, 1999). We also note that at Young's plea hearing,

the government stated and Young accepted that the seized PCC, if

fully processed, would have yielded 831 grams of pure PCP. The

record does not reveal why the weight listed in Young's PSR is

different from that stated during the plea hearing, but Young has

alleged neither that the PSR's determination was erroneous nor

that the difference adversely affected his sentence.

USCA Case #00-3007 Document #595302 Filed: 05/11/2001 Page 3 of 11
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Young, 932 F.2d 1510, 1515 (D.C. Cir. 1991). When the

district court resentenced Young on December 18, 1991, the

presentence report again stated that he had been arrested

with 35 grams of pure PCP and 682 grams of PCC, and that

the latter would have produced 862 grams of pure PCP. 1991

PSR p 13. Based on a combined total of 897 grams of pure

PCP, the district court again--and again without objection--

assigned Young a base offense level of 34 and applied a twolevel downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility.

1991 PSR pp 22, 27. Young was sentenced to 150 months'

imprisonment on the PCP count and to 60 consecutive months

on the firearm count.3 He did not file a direct appeal from

the resentencing.

II

On November 24, 1998, Young filed a motion to reduce his

1991 sentence with the same district judge who had sentenced

him twice before. The motion was filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

s 3582(c)(2), which permits a court to modify a term of

imprisonment "in the case of a defendant who has been

sentenced ... based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission."

Young asserted that his sentence should be reduced because

of Guideline Amendment 484, which, effective November 1,

1993, altered Application Note 1 to U.S.S.G. s 2D1.1. At the

time of Young's 1991 resentencing,4 Application Note 1 stat-

__________

3 During his resentencing, Young challenged the criminal history

category used in his 1990 sentencing proceeding. Although Young

had not raised that issue during the appeal from his 1990 sentence,

the government and district court agreed that Young's criminal

history category had been miscalculated, and the court used a

recalculated criminal history category to determine the appropriate

sentence.

4 "Under s 1B1.11 of the Guidelines, ... resentencing occurs

under the version of the Guidelines in effect at the time of resentencing unless such an application would violate the ex post facto

clause of ... the Constitution." United States v. Clark, 8 F.3d 839,

844 (D.C. Cir. 1993). There are, in any event, no substantive

differences between the 1989 and 1991 versions of the guidelines

USCA Case #00-3007 Document #595302 Filed: 05/11/2001 Page 4 of 11
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

ed: " 'Mixture or substance' as used in this guideline has the

same meaning as in 21 U.S.C. s 841." U.S.S.G. s 2D1.1,

comment., n.1 (1991). Amendment 484, in relevant part,

added that "[m]ixture or substance does not include materials

that must be separated from the controlled substance before

the controlled substance can be used." U.S.S.G. app. C,

amend. 484. The amendment went on to note that "[e]xamples of such materials include the fiberglass in a cocaine/fiberglass bonded suitcase, beeswax in a cocaine/beeswax statue,

and waste water from an illicit laboratory used to manufacture a controlled substance." Id.

Young argued to the district court that, pursuant to

Amendment 484, the weight of the PCC should not have been

used in determining his offense level. As support, he cited

commentary to the amendment which, he contended, clarifies

that the term "mixture or substance" does not include the

weight of "chemicals seized before the end of processing

[that] are not usable in that form because further processing

must take place before they can be used." U.S.S.G. app. C,

amend. 484, comment. The PCC at issue in this case, he

claimed, was such a chemical.

The district court denied Young's motion on two grounds.

First, the court held that Amendment 484 does not apply to

PCC because PCC is not a material that, in the amendment's

words, "must be separated" from PCP before PCP can be

used. The commentary's reference to seized chemicals, the

court concluded, refers to waste byproducts of the manufacture of a controlled substance and not to precursor chemicals

like PCC. Young, slip op. at 3-4.

Second, the district court held that Amendment 484 would

not reduce Young's sentence in any event, because the court

had not sentenced Young under the provision altered by

Amendment 484--namely, Application Note 1 to Guideline

s 2D1.1. Rather, Young had been sentenced under Application Note 12, which applies when the amount of drugs seized

does not reflect the scale of the offense. The court said that,

__________

applicable to Young's sentence. From this point forward, all references will be to the 1991 version unless otherwise noted.

USCA Case #00-3007 Document #595302 Filed: 05/11/2001 Page 5 of 11
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

in applying the latter note, it had based Young's sentence not

on the amount of PCP or PCC he possessed, but rather on his

capacity to produce a total of 897 grams of pure PCP.

Accordingly, whatever changes were wrought by Amendment

484, they were inapplicable to Young's case. Young, slip op.

at 5.

III

The parties are in accord that the issue presented in this

case is a legal one, and hence subject to our de novo review.

See United States v. Drew, 200 F.3d 871, 876 (D.C. Cir. 2000).

As we conclude that the district court's judgment was correct

even on that standard, we need not consider whether a more

deferential standard of review would be appropriate. See id.

(describing applicable standards of review in Guidelines

cases). Moreover, because we agree with the district court's

second rationale--that Young was not sentenced under a

provision affected by Amendment 484--we also need not

consider whether that amendment excludes the weight of a

precursor chemical like PCC from the weight of the "mixture

or substance" to which the Drug Quantity Table of s 2D1.1(c)

applies.

The Drug Quantity Table of Guideline s 2D1.1(c) establishes the base offense level that corresponds to the weight

and kind of controlled substance involved in a defendant's

offense. As provided in the guideline, "[u]nless otherwise

specified, the weight of a controlled substance set forth in the

table refers to the entire weight of any mixture or substance

containing a detectable amount of the controlled substance."

U.S.S.G. s 2D1.1(c), n.*. The guideline further provides that

"[i]n the case of a mixture or substance containing PCP," the

court should "use the offense level determined by the entire

weight of the mixture or substance, or the offense level

determined by the weight of the [pure] PCP ..., whichever is

greater." Id. (emphasis added).

Prior to its 1993 amendment, s 2D1.1 did not define "mixture or substance," other than to state, in Application Note 1,

USCA Case #00-3007 Document #595302 Filed: 05/11/2001 Page 6 of 11
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

that the term "has the same meaning as in 21 U.S.C. s 841."

That statute establishes penalties for crimes involving "mixture[s] or substance[s]" containing specified narcotics, but

also does not define the term. The effect of Amendment 484

is to clarify that, in using the Drug Quantity Table, the

sentencing court is to exclude from the weight of the "mixture

or substance" any "materials that must be separated from the

controlled substance before the controlled substance can be

used." U.S.S.G. app. C, amend. 484. Hence, if the court had

sentenced Young based on the weight of a mixture containing

both PCP and PCC, and in doing so had included the weight

of the PCC, it would be necessary to determine whether PCC

is the kind of material whose exclusion is required by Amendment 484.

But it is clear from both the district court's statements and

the presentence report that the court did not sentence Young

based on the weight of a mixture containing both PCP and

PCC. Rather, he was sentenced based on the weight of a

quantity of pure PCP. See Young, slip op. at 2; 1991 PSR

p 13. That quantity consisted of the 35 grams of pure PCP

seized at the time of his arrest, plus the 862 grams of pure

PCP that could have been produced from the amount of PCC

also in Young's possession. The resulting total of 897 grams

of pure PCP corresponds to an offense level of 34, as set forth

in the Drug Quantity Table. See s 2D1.1(c)(5) (specifying

offense level of 34 for offense involving 300-1000 grams of

pure PCP).

As the district court stated, and as the defendant himself

conceded below, the court calculated the amount of pure PCP

involved in Young's offense not by using Application Note 1 to

s 2D1.1, but rather by using Application Note 12. Young,

slip op. at 5 ("[T]he use of Note 12 was the basis of Young's

sentence calculation in this case."); Def.'s Resp. to Gov't's

Opp'n to Mot. to Modify Sentence at 2 ("[W]hen this Court

initially sentenced the defendant, it determined his offense

level by approximating the quantity of PCP that could be

produced from the 682 grams of precursor chemical,

USCA Case #00-3007 Document #595302 Filed: 05/11/2001 Page 7 of 11
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

PCC.... See s 2D1.1, Application Note 12."). Under that

note, "[i]f the amount seized does not reflect the scale of the

offense," the court is directed to use Application Note 2 to

s 2D1.4. Application Note 2, in turn, instructs the court to

"approximate the quantity of the controlled substance," and

provides that, in doing so, the court "may consider, for

example, ... the size or capability of any laboratory involved." U.S.S.G. s 2D1.4, comment., n.2.

The undisputed facts of this case established that the

amount of pure PCP seized from Young, 35 grams, did not

reflect the scale of the offense to which he pled guilty:

conspiracy to manufacture and distribute 100 grams or more

of pure PCP. See Judgment at 1. The evidence--which

included Young's acknowledgment that he had been en route

to obtain the chemicals needed to convert the PCC he had on

hand into PCP, see Change of Plea Tr. at 23--established

that Young was conspiring to manufacture considerably more

than those 35 grams. Accordingly, as the district court later

explained, it applied Application Note 12 and considered the

capability of Young's operation, which in this case was evidenced by the amount of PCC found in his possession. See

Young, slip op. at 2, 5. The court used that amount to

approximate the quantity of the controlled substance Young

was conspiring to manufacture: pure PCP. And it was that

quantity--the quantity of pure PCP involved--that dictated a

base offense level of 34. See U.S.S.G. s 2D1.1(c)(5) & n.*.

As this recitation makes clear, the district court did not

include the weight of the PCC in the weight of the "mixture

or substance" that was used to determine Young's sentence.

Hence, neither Application Note 1 nor Amendment 484 applies. Instead, employing Application Notes 12 and 2, the

court used the amount of PCC seized from Young as evidence

of the amount of pure PCP involved in Young's manufacturing conspiracy.5 Courts may rely on the amount of precursor

__________

5 See Young, slip op. at 2 ("When the defendant was first sentenced the court determined his offense level by approximating the

USCA Case #00-3007 Document #595302 Filed: 05/11/2001 Page 8 of 11
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

chemicals found in order to "approximate the quantity of the

controlled substance" involved in a manufacturing operation.

U.S.S.G. s 2D1.4, comment., n.2. See, e.g., United States v.

Smith, 240 F.3d 927, 930-31 (11th Cir. 2001); United States

v. Becker, 230 F.3d 1224, 1234-36 (10th Cir. 2000); United

States v. Allison, 63 F.3d 350, 352-53 (5th Cir. 1995); United

States v. Basinger, 60 F.3d 1400, 1409-10 (9th Cir. 1995);

United States v. Evans, 891 F.2d 686, 687-88 (8th Cir. 1989).

Indeed, Application Note 2's reference to "the size or capability of any laboratory involved" is listed merely as an "example" of the kind of evidence a court may consider in determining the amount of the controlled substance that was the

object of an incomplete conspiracy. U.S.S.G. s 2D1.4, comment., n. 2.6 As we have previously held, testimony about a

conspirator's intentions alone, even without physical evidence,

may be sufficient to establish the amount of drugs contemplated as the object of a conspiracy. See United States v.

Lam Kwong-Wah, 924 F.2d 298, 305-06 & n.4 (D.C. Cir.

1991). Where there is physical evidence, the case is that

much stronger.

__________

quantity of PCP that could be produced from 682 grams of PCC.");

id. at 5 ("Young could have easily produced 862 grams of pure PCP

with the PCC crystals he had already made once he obtained the

necessary [PMC].... Young's production capability was the basis

of his sentence."); see also Young Br. at 12-13 (conceding that "the

district court did not directly use the weight of the PCC in

determining [Young's] offense level," but that the weight of PCC

was used to determine the quantity of pure PCP "supposedly

capable of being produced from the PCC").

6 In 1991, Note 2 was an application note to s 2D1.4, which

provided that "if a defendant is convicted of a conspiracy ... to

commit any offense involving a controlled substance, the offense

level shall be the same as if the object of the conspiracy ... had

been completed." U.S.S.G. s 2D1.4. The Sentencing Commission

deleted s 2D1.4 in 1992, and moved the relevant text of Note 2 to

Application Note 12 of s 2D1.1. See U.S.S.G. app. C, amend. 447;

United States v. Ynfante, 78 F.3d 677, 680-81 (D.C. Cir. 1996)

(holding that amended Note 12 applies to choate as well as inchoate

offenses).

USCA Case #00-3007 Document #595302 Filed: 05/11/2001 Page 9 of 11
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

In sum, the district court did not include the seized PCC in

determining the weight of a "mixture or substance" under

Application Note 1 to s 2D1.1, but instead used the PCC as

evidence to calculate the weight of pure PCP that was the

object of Young's conspiracy, as prescribed by Application

Note 12 to s 2D1.1 and Application Note 2 to s 2D1.4. As

defendant conceded at oral argument, the latter notes were

unaffected by Amendment 484. See Allison, 63 F.3d at 353

(holding that "Amendment 484 does not speak to the situation

in which the district court is sentencing the defendant based

on the size and capability of the laboratory involved"). For

that reason, Young's motion to reduce his sentence pursuant

to 18 U.S.C. s 3582(c) must fail. That statute provides, in

relevant part, that a court "may not modify a term of

imprisonment once it has been imposed[,] except that" the

court may reduce a prison term "in the case of a defendant

who has been sentenced ... based on a sentencing range that

has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission ... if such a reduction is consistent with applicable

policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission." 18

U.S.C. s 3582(c) (emphasis added). To implement that provision, the Sentencing Commission promulgated Guideline

s 1B1.10, which contains a list of guideline amendments and

states that "[i]f none of the amendments listed ... is applicable, a reduction in the defendant's term of imprisonment

under 18 U.S.C. s 3582(c)(2) is not consistent with this policy

statement and thus is not authorized." U.S.S.G. s 1B1.10(a),

p.s. (2000). Although Amendment 484 is included in the list

of amendments, because the amendment is not applicable to

Young's case, 18 U.S.C. s 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a

reduction in his sentence.

IV

Young raises a number of additional challenges to his

sentence, based not on Amendment 484 but on asserted

deficiencies in the court's application of unamended provisions

of s 2D1.1 and s 2D1.4.7 In light of the foregoing, it is plain

__________

7 The principal deficiency Young asserts is that the district court

should have calculated the weight of PCP involved in his offense by

USCA Case #00-3007 Document #595302 Filed: 05/11/2001 Page 10 of 11
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

that those challenges cannot succeed either. As the Sentencing Commission stated in its commentary to s 1B1.10, when

adjudicating a motion based on s 3582(c)(2), all "guideline

application decisions remain unaffected" other than those

subject to the listed amendments. U.S.S.G. s 1B1.10, p.s.,

comment., n.2 (2000); see United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d

778, 780-81 (11th Cir. 2000); United States v. Wyatt, 115 F.3d

606, 609 (8th Cir. 1997). Because Young does not allege that

his additional challenges are grounded upon Amendment 484,

or upon any other amendment to the Guidelines, we have no

cause to consider them further.

V

The district court's denial of defendant's motion to modify

his sentence is

Affirmed.

__________

using the Drug Equivalency Table, U.S.S.G. s 2D1.1, comment.,

n.10, rather than by using either Application Note 1 or 12 to

s 2D1.1.

USCA Case #00-3007 Document #595302 Filed: 05/11/2001 Page 11 of 11