FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT JUNE 3, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H]
I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 12683 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 03 -006 65 -C R -1-1 U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f
- A p p e lle e , v ersu s M A R C E U G E N E N O B L I T T , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e r n D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( Ju n e 3, 2008) B efo re C A RN E S , B A R K E T T an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: M a r c E uge ne N o b l i ttappe a l s hi s 262- m onth s e nt e nc e f ortw o c ount s of
c o n s p i r a c y t o p o s s e s s w i th i n t e n tt o d i s t r i but e 3 , 4 me th y l e n e d i o x y me th a m-2

p h e ta m in e ( “M D M A ” ) , in v io la tio n o f 2 1 U . S . C . § § 8 4 6 , 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( C ) , a n d s ix
coun t s o f

po s s e s s i on of

M D M A , i n v i ol a t i on of 21 U . S. C. § 8 41 ( a ) ( 1) , ( B) ( 1) ( C ). O n app ea l , N ob l i ttargu es thatthe di stri ctcourterre d b y a do pt i ng the pres ent ence i nv es t i gat i on re p o rt(“ P S I” ) a s und i sput ed, pu rs uantt o R ul e 32(i )( 3) of the F eder al R u le s o f C r im in a l P r o c e d u r e . W e r evi ew the di stri ctcourt ’ s ap p li ca ti on of R ul e 32 d e nov o. U ni t ed S t at es v. N oel , 23 1 F . 3d 83 3, 83 6 (11 th C i r. 20 00 ). W e r evi ew the district co urt ’ s f ac tual fi nd i ng s f

or c l e a r e r r or . U ni t e d St a t e s v. O r i s no r d, 48 3 F. 3d 11 69 , 11 81 ( 11 t h C i r. 20 07 ). A ft erca re ful re vi ew of the re cord, w e vac ate and re m and N ob l i tt ’ s s ent ence f orf ur the rpr oc e e di ngs c ons i s t e ntw i th thi s opi ni on. T he re l evant f

ac ts are these
. N ob l i ttpl ed gu i l ty t o t w o cou nt s of c on spi ra cy t o p os s e s s w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e M D M A , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . §§ 846, 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( C ) , a n d s ix c o u n t s o f p o s s e s s io n o f

M D M A , in v io la tio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 841( a ) ( 1) , ( b) ( 1) ( C )
. H e the n pr oc e e de d t o s e nt e nc i ng. A cc ordi ng t o t he P S I, N ob l i ttw as a m em ber of a c on spi ra cy thatprod uced ap p ro x im at el y 40 k i l og ra m s of M D M A fr om the sum m erof 20 00 un t i l S ept em ber 2 0 0 3 . No b l i tt ’ s r o l e i n th e c o n s p i r a c y i n c l u d e d m a n u f a c tu r i n g a n d s e l l i n g MDM A. H e a l s o s e r ve d i n a c ons ul t i ng r ol e f or s t a r tup M D M A l a b s b y p ro vi di ng pr oduc t i on a dvi c e i n e xc ha nge f ora por t i on of

the M D M A p ro d u c e d. A c c or di ng3

t o t he go vernm ent , the t ot al stre etval ue of the M D M A p ro d u ce d w as betw ee n $ 8 ,2 5 0 ,0 0 0 a n d $ 1 1 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 . T h e P S I s t a t e d th a tNo b l i ttwa s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r5 2 , 5 0 0 g r a ms o f

MDMA,
a n d a s s ig n e d N o b litt a b a s e o f f e n s e le v e l o f

3 6 , p u r s u a n t to th e ap p lic a b le G ui de l i ne s drug qua nt i ty t a bl e , U . S . S . G . § 2D 1. 1( c )
. T he P S I r e c om m e nde d the f ol l ow i ng a dj us tm e nt s : ( 1) a 3- l e ve l i nc r e a s e , pur s ua ntt o § 3 B 1 . 1 , f orbe i ng the
m an ag er o rs upe r vi s orof c r i m i na l a c t i vi ty i nvol vi ng f i ve orm or e pa r t i c i pa nt s or tha tw a s othe r w i s e e xt e ns i ve ; ( 2) a 2- l e ve l i nc r e a s e , pur s ua ntt o § 3C 1. 1, f or obs truc t i on of

j us t i c e ; a nd ( 3) a 2 -l ev el d e c r e a s e , pur s ua ntt o § 3E 1. 1, f or ac ce pt ance of re spon si bi l i ty. W ith an adj ust ed offens e l evel of 39 and a cri m i nal hi s t or y c a t e gor y I , N obl i ttf a c e d a n ad v i s or y G ui de l i ne s r a nge of 262 t o 327
m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. No b l i ttf i l e d o b j e c t i o n s t o th e P S I . H e o b j e c t e d t o th e q u a n t i ty o f MD MA for w hi ch he w as h eld ac coun t abl e i n t he P S I, cont endi ng thathe shou l d h ave been he l d a c c ount a bl e f

oronl y 6, 000 t o 20, 000 gr a m s of M D M A , w hi c h w oul d ha ve yi el ded a base off

ense l evel of 34 . N ob l i ttal so obj ec t ed t o rec ei vi ng an a ggr a va t i ng r ol e e nha nc e m e ntunde r§ 3 B 1 . 1. N obl i ttde t a i l e d the s e obj e c t i ons i n a l e tt e ra tt a c he d t o the P S I . T he l e tt e rpr ovi de d the f ol l ow i ng:4

P ar agraph s 18-95 : M r. N ob l i ttshou l d b e hel d r es po nsi bl e f or betw ee n 6, 00 0 - 2 0 ,0 00 gram s of M D M A . M r. N ob l i ttdi d n othave an a g g r a v a tin g r o le in th e o f f e n s e . P ar agraph 96 : M r. N ob l i t tshou l d b e h el d res po nsi bl e f or betw ee n 6 ,0 0 0 - 2 0 ,0 0 0 g r a m s o f M D M A . P arag rap h 1 0 0 : T h e o ffen se l ev el sp eci fi ed i n th e D ru g Q u an t i ty T a b le un der U
. S . S . G . § 2 D 1. 1(c) [3] se t s abase o ff en se l evel of 34 . M r. N o b l i tti s r e s p o n s i b l e f o rb e tw e e n 6 , 0 0 0 - 2 0 , 0 0 0 g r a m s o f MD MA w h ic h c o n v e r ts to b e tw e e n 3 ,0 0 0 - 1 0 ,0 0 0 k ilo g r a m s o f m a r iju a n a . P a r a gr aph 103: M r . N obl i ttdi d notha ve a n a ggr a vat i n g r ol e i n the o f f e n s e . T h e r e f

o r e , n o p o in ts s h o u ld b e a d d e d
. P a r a g r ap h 1 0 5 : A d

ju s te d O f

f e n s e L e v e l ( S u b to ta l) 3 4 . P a r a gr aph 107: T ot a l O f f e ns e L e ve l i s 34. B e f or e the s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, the gove r nm e ntf i l e d a s e nt e nc i ng m e m or a ndum i n w hi c h i tc ha l l e nge d the s uf f i ci en c y of

N obl i tt ’ s obj e c t i ons t o the P S I . A c c or di ng t o the g o ve r nm e nt , N obl i tt ’ s obj e c t i ons w e r e “ pe r f unc t or y ” a nd “l ac k in g in sp ec ificity.” T h e g o v er n m en t u rg ed th e d istrict co u rt to a d o p t th e P S I’s
s t a t e m e ntof

the f a c t s a s undi sp u t ed b ec a us e N obl i tt ’ s obj e c t i ons w e r e s o de f i c i e nt thatthey di d n ottri gg erthe court ’s d u ty t o res ol ve di sput ed fa ct s i n t he P S I, un der F ed. R . C ri m . P . 32 (i )( 3). A tthe s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, the di s tr i c tc our ta dopt e d the P S I w i th the
e xc e pt i on of

the pa r a gr aphs pe r t a i ni ng t o drug qua nt i ty a nd N obl i tt ’ s r ol e i n the of f e ns e , on w hi c h the c our ts a i d i tw oul d he a ra r gum e nt . T he gove r nm e nt5

m a i nt a i ne d i t s pos i t i on tha tN obl i tt ’ s obj e c t i ons t o the P S I w e r e i ns uf f i c i e nta nd
r e que s t e d tha tN obl i tts pe c i f y f orthe co u rt t h e P S I pa r a gr aphs tha the di s put e d. N ob l i ttre spon ded: “W e c an do that
. ” T he di stri ctcourtthen i nstruct ed the part i es t o con fer w it h each ot her a nd di re ct ed N ob l i ttt o t el l the go vernm entthe fa ctual para graphs w it h w h ich h e a gree d and tho se thathe di sput ed. T he di stri ctcourt
n o te d th a t th e g o v e r n m e n t w a s p r e p a r e d to c o m e f o r w a r d w ith its w i tn e s s e s in
s uppor tof

the f a c t s i n the P S I , a nd tha tthe gove r nm e ntw a s t ryi n g t o asc e r t a i n the f a c ts N o b litt a g r e e d to s o i tc o u ld lim it th e s c o p e o f th e te s tim o n y it n e e d e d to el i ci t . N o b li tt re sp on ded b y propo si ng thatthe go vernm entst ar tre adi ng the P S I a t p a r a g r ap h o n e , a n d , a f

te re a c h p a r a g r ap h , h e w o u ld s ta te w h e th e rh e a g r e e d w ith it. T he di s tr i c t c our t a s ke d N obl i tt w hy he c oul d not s pe c i f y f or the govern m en tthe di sput ed fa ctual al l egat i on s, and N ob l i ttre sp o n d ed th at he coul d i f he had a fe w mi n u t e s . Th e g o v e r n me nt r e s ponde d th a tN o b l i tts h o u l d h a v e o b j e c t e d t o th e PSI
w i thi n t h e p ro pe rt i m e f r a m e , a nd t o the e xt e nttha the ha d obj e c t e d, hi s obj e c t i ons w e r e l e ga l l y i ns uf

f i c i e nt . A t tha t poi nt , the c our t c ont i nue d the s e nt e nci n g h ear i ng, di r e c t i ng the gove r nm e ntt o f i l e a m o t i o n a nd N obl i ttt o f i l e a r e s pons e t o the g o v e r n m e n t’s m o tio n . T he go vernm entfi l ed a m otio n to ad op tthe fa ct s i n t he P S I a s und i sput ed p u rs u an t t o R u le 3 2 (i)( 3 ). In th e m o ti o n , th e g o v e r n m en t arg u ed th at N o b li tt ’s6

o b je c tio n s la c k e d th e s p e c if ic ity a n d c l a r ity r e q u ir e d to tr ig g e rth e c o u r t’s d u ty to
m a ke f a c tua l f i ndi ngs unde rR ul e 32( i )(3 ). N o bl i ttr e s ponde d by i de nt i f y i ng, pa r a gr aph by pa r a gr ap h , t h e f a c tua l a l l e ga t i ons i n the P S I w i th w hi c h he di s a gr e e d. I n e s s e nc e , N obl i ttc ont e s t e d c e r t a i n fact s a f f e c t i ng the c a l c ul a t i on of t ot a l drug q u an t i ty an d h i s ro l e i n th e co n sp i racy. A tthe c ont i nue d s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, the di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d the g o v e r n m e n t’s m o tio n to a d o p t th e f a c ts in th e P S I a s u n d is p u te d u n d e rR u le 32( i ) ( 3) , s t a t i ng tha ti ta gr e e d w i th the g o v ern m en ttha tN obl i tt ’ s obj e c t i ons t o the P S I w ere s o “ p erfu n ct o ry, co n cl u so ry, an d l ack i n g i n b o th cl ari ty an d sp eci fi ci ty” th a t th e c o u r t w a s n o t r e q u ir e d t o m a k e f a c tu a l f in d in g s b e y o n d th o s e c o n ta in e d in th e P S I . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t f u r th e rs ta te d th a t, a lth o u g h N o b litt h a d r e s p o n d e d to th e g o v ern m en t ’ s m o t i o n an d setfo rth ad d i t i o n al o b j ect i o n s t o th e facts, th o se obj e c t i ons w e r e unt i m e l y pur s ua ntt o F e d. R . C r i m . P 32( f ) ( 1)
. A c c or di ngl y , the
co u rtad o p t ed th e P S I as u n d i sp u t ed , fi n d i n g th atth e g o v e r n m e n th ad sh o w n b y a pr e ponde r a nc e of

the ev i d en ce t ha tN obl i tt ’ s r ol e i n the of f e ns e a nd the qua nt i ty of drug s f or w hi ch he w as ac coun t abl e w er e s t at ed ac cu ra tely i n t he P S I. T he court the n s e nt e nc e d N obl i ttt o 262 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nt . T hi s appe a l f ol l ow e d. R u le 3 2 ( i) ( 3 ) ( B ) o f t h e F e d e r a l R u le s o f C r im in a l P r o c e d u r e p r o v id e s th a t a s e nt e nc i ng c our t“ m us t- - f ora ny di s put e d por t i on o f t h e pr e s e nt e nc e r e por tor7

o th e rc o n tr o v e r te d m a tte r- - ru le o n th e d is p u te o rd e te r m in e t h a ta ru lin g is
unne c e s s a r y e i the rbe c a us e the m a tt e rw i l l nota f f e c ts e nt en ci n g, orbe c a us e the
co u rt w il l n o t co n sid erth e m atter in se n ten cin g .” F ed . R . C r im
. P . 3 2 ( i) (3 )( B ). “A de f e nda nttr i gge r s [ the pr e de c e s s ort o R ul e 32( i ) ( 3) ( B ) ] onl y b y c ha l l e ngi ng s t a t e m e nt s of

f a c ttha ta r e i n the pr e s e nt e nc e r e por t . V ag u e a s s e r t i ons of i nacc ur a c i e s i n the r e po r t a r e i ns uf f i c i e nt ; i ns t e a d, the de f

e nd a nt mus t ma ke cl ea r and focused o bje ct i on s t o speci fi c f ac tual al l egat i on s m ade i n t he re po rt . ” U ni t ed S ta te s v . O w e n , 8 5 8 F .2 d 1 5 1 4 , 1 5 1 7 ( 1 1 th C ir
. 1 9 8 8 ) ( c ita tio n o m i t t e d ; e m p h a s is
a dde d)
. W e h av e h el d tha t“ c ha l l e nge s t o the P S I m us ta s s e r tw i th s pe c i f i c i ty a nd
c l a r i ty e a c h f

a c tua l m i s t a ke of

w hi c h [ the ] de f

e nda ntc om pl a i ns . ” U ni t ed S t a t e s v. A le m a n , 8 3 2 F .2 d 1 4 2 , 1 4 5 ( 1 1 th C ir
. 1 9 8 7 )
. O th e r w is e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r tw o u ld ha ve t o “ gue s s w he the r a ch al l en g e i s be i ng m ount e d a s w e l l a s w ha tde f e nda nt
w is h e s to c o n te s t; R u le 3 2 d o e s n o t p la c e th a t b u r d e n o n d is tr ic t ju d g e s .” I d
.

“ [ W ] hi l e a d e f

e n d a n t ma y c h a l l e n g e s t a t e me n t s o f f a c t i n th e PSI , h e c a nnot pr ope rl y m a ke R ul e 32 obj e c t i ons tha tgo, f ore xa m pl e , m e r e l y t o t one , f or m , or st y l e of the r e por tortha tpr ot e s tobvi ous r e c om m e nda t i ons , opi ni ons , or c o n c lu s io n s th a t a r e n o t f u n d a m e n ta lly f

a c tu a l in n a tu r e .” I d . I f th e c h a lle n g e is nota s s e r t e d w i th s pe c i f i c i ty a nd c l ari t y, i t i s w a i ve d. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B e nne tt , 472 F . 3d 825, 832 ( 11th C i r . 2006)
. I n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. V i l l e ga s , 911 F . 2d 623 , 6 3 2
- 338

( 11th C i r . 1990) , w e he l d tha t , be c a us e a de f e nda nt ’ s obj e c t i ons t o hi s r ol e i n the of f e ns e w e r e e s s e nt i a l l y obj e c t i ons t o opi ni ons orl e ga l c onc l us i ons , a nd the de f e nda ntha d notc ha l l e nge d the a c c ur a c y of the f a ct s unde r l y i ng the char ac t er i za t i on s, hi s obj ec t i on s w er e “ no tcogn i zabl e und erR ul e 32. ”

“ W hen a defendantchal l eng es on e of the fa ctual base s of hi s s ent ence as se t forth i n h i s [ P S I] , the bu rden res t s w i th t he prosecut i on t o est abl i sh the di sput ed f a c tby a pr e ponde r a nc e of the e vi de nc e . T he tr i al co u rt m us tthe n e i the r( 1) m a ke
a n e xpl i c i tf

a c tua l f i ndi ng a s t o the a l l e ga t i on; or(2 ) de t e r m i ne tha tno s uc h f i ndi ng is n e c e s s a r y b e c a u s e t h e m a tte rc o n tr o v e r te d w ill n o t b e ta k e n in to a c c o u n t in
se nt enci ng the defendant
. ” U ni ted S tates v. B ut l er , 41 F . 3d 14 35 , 14 44 (11t h C i r. 1 9 9 5 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . “W h e n a d e f e n d a n t o bje c ts to a f

a c tu a l f in d in g th a t is
us e d i n c a l c ul a t i ng hi s gui de l i ne s e nt e nc e , s uc h a s drug a m ount , the go v ern m e nt be a r s the bur de n of

e s t a bl i s hi ng the di s pu t ed fact by a pr e ponde r a nc e of the
e vi de n ce. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R odr i gue z , 398 F . 3d 1291, 1296 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . I f

th e g o v e r n m e n t d o e s n o t p r e s e n t e v id e n c e to s u p p o r t a c ont e s t e d f

a c tunde r l y i ng the de f

e nda nt ’ s s e nt e nc e , w e a r e “ obl i g ed t o va c a t e the
s e nt e nc e i m pos e d a nd r e m a nd f orr e s e nt e nc i ng. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H a l l , 3 49 F . 3d 1 3 2 0 , 1 3 2 5 - 2 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 )
.9

In thi s app ea l , w e co n sid erthe suff i ci ency of N ob l i tt ’ s tw o p ri m ary obj e c t i ons t o the P S I: (1 ) t h e e nha nc e m e ntf orhi s r ol e i n the of

f e ns e a nd ( 2) the
c a lc u la tio n o f

th e u ltim a te q u a n tity o f d ru g s a ttr ib u te d to h im
. F i r s t , N o b l i tt ’ s t i m e l y obj e c t i on t o hi s r ol e i n the of f e ns e di d notc ha l l e nge th e u n d erl yin g fact s su p p o rt i n g th e P S I’ s reco m m en d at i o n t o en h an ce h i s o ffen se l evel base d o n h is lead er sh i p rol e i n t he offens e. R ather, he sum m ar i l y s t at ed: “ M r. N ob l i ttdi d n othave an aggravat i ng rol e i n t he o ff en se .” H e i n n o w ay chal l enged the P S I ’ s s t a t e m e ntof

the f a c t s s uppor t i ng the l e a de r s hi p e nha nc e m e nt . H e di d not di s put e tha thi s r ol e i n the c ons pi r a c y i nc l ude d both m a nuf a c tur i ng a nd s e l l i ng M D M A , or t ha the s e r ve d i n a c ons ul t i ng r ol e f ors t a r tup M D M A l a bs by pr ovi di ng pr oduc t i on a dvi c e i n e xc ha nge f ora por t i on of

the M D M A pr oduc e d. H e di d not d i s p u t e th e P S I ’ s d e s c r i p t i o n o f h o w h e e x p a n d e d th e s c o p e o f th e MD MA d is tr ib u tio n o p e r a tio n b y a s s is tin g in th e e s ta b lis h m e n t o f n u m e r o u s la b s . H is
e f f or t s i nc l uded p r ovi di ng w i l l i ng m a nuf a c tur e r s w i th the ne c e s s a r y c he m i c a l s a nd equi pm entt o m ake the M D M A . In short , he di sput ed no ne of the fa ct s det ai l ed at l ength in the P S I. T hese fa ct s a m pl y s up po rtthe P S I’ s r ec om m endat i on that N ob l i ttpl ay ed a l ea ders hi p ro le i n t he conspi ra cy . O n t hi s r ec ord, i ti s obv i ou s that N obl i tt ’ s one - l i ne obj e c t i on t o a l e ga l c oncl u si o n i n t h e P S I - - tha tba s e d on the10

forgoi ng fa ct s, N ob l i ttpl ay ed an aggravat i ng rol e i n t he offens e co n sp irac y - - w as in s u f f ic ie n t to tr ig g e rth e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s f a c t- f in d in g d u ty u n d e rR u le 3 2 . W e r e a c h a di f

f e r e ntc onc l us i on, how e ve r , a s t o N obl i tt ’ s obj e c t i on t o drug qu ant i ty, w hi ch w e f

i nd w as “ fund am ent al l y f ac tual i n n ature” and p utthe court
a nd t h e g o v ern m en ton not i c e a s t o the f a c tua l i s s ue i n di s put e . A l e m a n, 832 F . 2d
a t145; s e e a l s o R odr i gue z , 398 F . 3d a t129 6 (h o l di ng tha tgove r nm e ntbe a r s the bur de n t o e s t a b l i s h d i s p u t e d f a c t s b y a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f th e e v i d e n c e a nd
enum er at i ng “ drug am ou nt ” a s a n exam pl e of s uch a fac t ); U ni t ed S t at es v. W i se , 8 8 1 F .2 d 9 7 0 , 9 7 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 9 ) ( s ta tin g th a t “ap p e lla n t p r o p e r ly o b je c te d to [drug q ua n ti ty in] the pres ent ence re po rt[by] cont endi ng thatthe evi dence w as in s u f f ic ie n t to e s ta b lis h th a t o v e r5 0 0 g r a m s o f c o c a i n e b a s e w e r e in v o lv e d in h is
o f f e n s e ” )
. A ga i n, the P S I s t a t e d tha tN obl i ttw a s r e s ponsi b l e for52, 500 gr a m s of M D M A . I n hi s w r i tt en o bj ect i o ns a nd a tt a c he d l e tt e r , N obl i ttobj e c t e d t o the qua nt i ty of

M D M A f

orw h i ch h e w a s he l d a c c ount a bl e i n the P S I a nd s t a t e d tha the
s h o u l d h a v e b e e n h e l d a c c o u n t a b l e f o ro n l y 6 , 0 0 0 t o 2 0 , 0 0 0 g r a m s o f MDMA. T hi s obj e c t i on w a s s pe c i f i c , c l e a r , a nd t i m e l y . M o reove r , i tc ha l l e nge d a
c onc l us i on i n th e P S I tha tw a s f unda m e nt a l l y f

a c tua l i n na tur e . R odr i gue z , 398 F . 3d a t1296; W i s e , 881 F . 2d a t972; A l e m a n, 832 F . 2d a t145. O n thi s r e c or d,We DENY Noblitt’s “Motion to Remove Counsel and to Stay Appellate Proc eeding s.” 1 11 p u r s u a n t to R u le 3 2 ( i) ( 3 ) ( B ) , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t w a s r e q u ir e d to e n g a g e in fa ct -f i nd i ng suff

i ci entt o res ol ve the di sput ed i ss ue. In order for the di stri ctcourt to c o n d u c t its f

a c t- f in d in g , t h e g o v e r n m e n t h a d th e b u r d e n to c o m e f o r w a r d w ith
e vi de nc e s uf

f i c i e ntt o pr ove by a pr e po n d eran ce i t s c ont e nt i on w i th r e s pe c tt o drug qua nt i ty . S e e R odr i gue z , 398 F . 3d a t1296 ; U n i t ed S t a t e s v. L a w r e nc e , 47 F . 3d 1559, 1567 ( 11th C i r . 1995)
. T he di s tr i c tc ou rt ’ s fi n di ng by a pr e ponde r a nc e of the
e v i d en ce t h atthe drug qua nt i ty w a s a c c ur a t e l y s t a t e d i n the P S I w a s m a de w i thout the re ce i ptof any gov ernm entevi dence. A cc ordi ng l y, the di stri ctcou rt’ s f ac tual f in d in g w ith r e s p e c t t o d r u g q u a n tity w a s c le a r ly e r r o n e o u s a n d w e m u s t v a c a te N obl i tt ’ s s e nt e nc e a nd r e m a nd f orf ur the r p ro ceed i ngs on thi s i s s ue . A ga i n, the g o v e r n m e n t b e a r s th e b u r d e n o f c o m in g f

o r w a r d w i t h s u f

f ic ie n t e v id e n c e to e s t a b l i s h b y a p r e p o n d e r a n c e th a t N o b l i tt s h o u l d b e h e l d a c c o u n t a b l e f or 52, 500 g r a m s o f MDMA. 1 VA C A TED A N D R EM A N D ED FO R FU R TH ER PR O C EED I N G S.