### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT J anu ary 27, 20 05 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 03- 1340 6

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 01-00126 -CR- W TM- 4 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us DORIAN GRANT, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t..

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J an ua ry27, 200 5)

Be fo re CA RN E S, H U L L and H IL L , Ci rc uit Jud ge s.In return f or Gra nt’s plea, the g overnme nt agree d to dismi ss count 2 of the indictment 1 (possessingL SD with intent to di stribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) a nd (b)( 1)(A) ). At his init ial sentenc ing he aring , the district court infor med Gra nt that the maxi mum statutory penalty it could impose would be a sente nce of imprisonment of “not less than ten year s nor more than life.” Gra

nt acknowle dg ed to the cour t that he under stood. Gra nt has not contende d either in district cour t or this court that the 2 Apprendi/Blakely

/Booker line of dec isions affec t the validity of his sentenc e. Apprendi v. New Jerse y , 1 20 S.Ct . 2 34 8 ( 20 00 ); Blakely v. W ashington , 1 24 S.Ct . 2 53 1 ( 20 04 ); United States v. Booke r , 125 S.Ct . 738 (2005). 2 HI LL , C ircuit Judg e: T his c as e is o ne of

f ir st i m pr es sio n inthi s c ir cu it. I t i nvol ve s th e w ei ght of drug s u se d i n re -s en te nc in g t he de fen da nt , Dori an Gran t, i n adru g c on sp ira cy . G rant p le d gu ilty

to one c ount

of c onsp ir ac y

to poss es s w ithint en t t o dis tr ibu te and c onsp ir ac y to dis tr ibu te 10 g ram s or m or e of a‘ m ixt ur e or subs tanc e’ c ont ai nin g ade te ct ab le a m ount of ly se rg ic a ci d di etyhlam ide ( L SD ) in vio la tio n of

18 U . S. C. § 2; 21 U . S. C. §§ 8 41( a) (1 ), 841 (b )( 1) (A )( v) , and 8 46. 1 T h e L S D th a tG r an tan dh i s c o - c o n s p i r a t o r s tr a f f i c k e di nw a s i nl i qu i df

o rm. The di st ric t co ur t s en te nc edGran t t o 1 08 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. Su bse que ntl y , that se nte nc e w as va cate d and G rant w as se nte nc ed to 54 m onths’ im pr is on m en t. G rant n owappe al s hi s r e- se nte nc ing . W e af fi rm the j udgm en t of

the 2 dis tr ic t c ourt. I. BACKGROUNDSection 841(b)( 1)(A) (v) r eads in pa rt: “[i] n the ca se of a

violation of subsection (a) of 3 thi s se c tio n invo lvi ng. . . 1 0 gra ms o r m or e of

a mixture or

su bs tanc e c onta ini nga

de te c ta ble amount of [L SD] . . . . such per son shall be sentenc ed to a ter m of imprisonment which may not be less than 10 year s or more tha n life . . . .” Ba sed upon this calculation, the max imum st atutory penalty Gra nt fac ed wa s 4 imprisonment for not less than ten year s and not more than life ; not more than a $4,000,000 f ine; and at le a st f ive y e ars ’ s up e rv ise d r e le a se . H is p ro je c te d guid e lin e se nte nc ingra ng e wa s 1 51 to 3 A . F ac tua l B ac kgroun d T he f ac ts are not

in dis put e. T he L SD dis tr ibu te d by c oll eg e se nio r G rant an d hi s c o- co nspi rator s w as c ont ai ne d inw at er . T he w ei ght of the pur e L SD a lon e w as 0. 1263 gr am s, the e qui va le nt o f 2526 dos ag e uni ts o r “ hit s. ” T he a ggr eg at e w ei ght of the w at er and the pur e L SD w as 103 . 7 gr am s ( liquid L SD ), or ap pr ox im at el y

on e-t hi rdof t he li qu idco nt en ts fou ndin a so da can . B . Proc ed

ural B ac kgroun d 1. I nit ial Se nte nc ing G rant’ s in dic tm en t c harg ed , and G rant p le ad ed gui lty to, ac ount

c ont ai nin g a specific dr

ug qu antity , i. e. , 10 gram s or m ore of a m ixture or subst ance containin g a detectable am ount of L SD . Ac cordingly , G rant fac ed a statutory m ini m um se nte nc e of

10 y ears . S ec tio ns 8 41( b) (1 )( A )( v) and 8 46. U sin g th e 3 D ec em be r 16, 200 0, e dit ionof

the se nte nc ing gui de lin es m anua l, the pr obatio n of fi ce r, in his pr es en te nc e inv es tig at ionr ep ort ( PS I) , a ttr ibu te d 10 3. 7 gr am s of LS D to G rant, the weight of the liquid LSD . Gr ant did no t objec t to the PSI. 4188 months’ imprisonment.

U. S.S. G. § 5 G1 .1 (b ), e nti tle d “ Se nte nc ingon a Sin g le Count o f C onvic tio n, ” re a ds in 5 full: “Where a

statutorily

require d minimum sentenc e is g reater than the maxi mum of the applicable guideline ra

ng e, the statutorily

require d minimum sentenc e shall be the guideline sentenc e.” 4 Prior to hear ing, the governm ent filed a m otion for downw ard departure pursuant to 18 U. S. C. § 355 3(e) and U. S. S. G. § 5K1.1, for G rant’ s subs tantial as sis tanc e to a

uth or iti es in inv es tig at ing and p ro se cu tin g othe rs inv olv ed in the L SD c onsp ir ac y . I n r es pons e, the dis tr ic t c ourt de part ed downw ar dly

f ro m the 120- m onth st at

uto ry m ini m um se nte nc e an d se nte nc ed

G rant t o 10 8 m onths’ im pr iso nm en t. S ec tio ns 8 41( b) (1 )( A )( v) , 846 ; S ec tio n 35 53( e) ; S ec tio ns 5K 1. 1and 5 G 1. 1( b) . H e w as spe ci al ly a sse sse d $1 00 and g ive n f ive y ears ’ 5 supervised release. Whil e G rant’ s a

ppe al w as pe ndi ng, his de fe nse c ouns el a le rt ed the go ve rn m en t an d t he co ur t t o acas e th atha d b een ov erl oo ke d a t s en te nc in g. See U nit ed Sta tes v . Ca m ac ho , 26 1 F .3d10 71 (11 Cir . 20 01 ), cert. denied , 123 S . Ct . th 1940 ( 2003 ) (f

or se nte nc ing gui de lin e pur pose s, the w ei ght

of pur e L SD a lon e shou ld b e use d to de te rm ine ade fe ndant’ s ba se of fe nse le ve l) . I n r es pons e, the gove rn m en t f

ile d am oti on f

or sum m ar y r em an d. T his c ourt c onstru ed the5

gove rn m en t’ s m oti on a s ac onf es sio n of e rr or , va cate d G rant’ s se nte nc e, and rem an de d t he cas e fo r re-s en te nc in g. 2. R e- se nte nc ing A t r e- se nte nc ing , ove r obj ec tio ns o f de fe nse c ouns el , the dis tr ic t c ourt a ga in fo und the 120 -m onth st at uto ry m ini m um se nte nc e unde r Se ct ion841 (b )( 1) (A )( v) to b e the ba se lin e fr om

w hic h to se nte nc e G rant a se co nd t im e. A t he ar ing , the dis tr ic t c ourt st at ed

that, “ [i ] n th e Co urt’ s op ini on the re ’ s no que sti on tha t l iqu id LS D is a m ix tur e or

sub stanc e co nta ini ng a

de te ct ab le a m ount

of L SD , the re by tr igg er ing S ec tio n 84 1( b) (1 )( A )( v) . . . I a gr ee w iththe pr obatio n of fi ce r that the total weight of the liquidLS D solution m ust be used to determ ine the m andatory m inim um sentence. ” (E m

phasis add ed.) T his ti m e the dis tr ic t c ourt de part ed downw ar dly , not

by tw el ve m onths, but by six ty -s ix m onths. I t i m

pose d ase nte nc e uponG rant o f fi fty -f our m onths, ha lf hi s o rig in al sen te nc e. See Sections 841(b)(1)(A) (v), 846; Section 35 53(e); Se ct ion s 5K 1. 1, 5G 1. 1( b) . G rant n owappe al s hi s r e- se nte nc ing . II. ISSUES PR ESENTED A . I n a ppl y ing the m an da tor

y statut or y m ini m um pe na lty pr ovi sio n, sho uld the district court consid er the w eight of the liqu id LSD , a s “ a m ixture or subst ance6

co nta ini ng a

de te ct ab le a m ount

of L SD ” unde r Se ct ion841 (b )( 1) (A )( v) , or the we ight o f the pure L SD alone? B. A s th e se nte nc e fi rs t e nte re d by the dis tr ic t c ourt w as tw el ve m onths be lowthe statut or

y m an da tor

y m ini m um , is it boun d, upo n r em an d, to co nsi de r the statut or y ba se of fe nse le ve l, 120 m onths, or m ay it c onsi de r the se nte nc ing gui de lin es ba se of

fe nse le ve l, f

if te ento tw en ty -o ne m onths unde r Se ct ion 2D1.1(c )? III. STANDARD OF REVIEW T his c ourt r ev ie w s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s a ppl ic at ionof

the se nte nc ing gui de lin es de novo an d i ts fin di ng s o f fact forcle ar erro r. Ca m ac ho , 261 F. 3d at 1073 , c iti ng U

nit ed Sta tes v . T

ruj illo , 146 F. 3d 83 8, 847 (11 Cir. 1998 ). th IV. DISCUSSI ON A. Contention s of the Parties 1. T he F irs t I ssu e a. G rant ’s Co nte nti ons as to th e W ei ght of Li qui d L SD I

ssu e G rant c ont en ds tha t he sho uld be se nte nc ed

to no m or e than f

if te ento tw en ty -o ne m onths’ im

pr iso nm en t un de r the se nte nc ing gui de lin es , ba se d up on h is cri m in al hi st ory , wit h a dju st m en t fo r acc ep ta nc e o f res po ns ib il it y . Se e Ca m ac ho , 261 F. 3d at 10 74. H e ar gue s th at , ‘ as he w as c onvi ct ed of ’ se lli ng . 1234 gr am s ofGra nt does not ref

ere nce the plea a g ree ment in which he pled guilty to a spec ific number 6 of g ra ms o f d ru g s. 7 pure LS D, this is th e am ount of drugs in which he traff icked under Ca m ac ho . Id . 6 H e cl ai m s th at

in thi s c ir cu it onl y

the w ei ght

of the pur e L SD a lon e, not

the li qui d LSD, can be us edin de te rm in in g h is sen te nc e u nd er t he sen te nc in g g ui de li ne s. Id . Inm ak ing thi s arg um en t, G rant a cknow le dge s th at the ana ly sis se t f

orth i n Ca m ac ho sto ppe d sh ort at the se nte nc ing gui de lin es , and d id n ot r ea chthe dr ug w ei ght iss ue in the c ont ex t of

the pe na lty

statut e. N ev er

the le ss, he c la im s th e sam e re sul t sh oul d oc cur. H e doe s th is b y tr y ing to dis tin gui sh Chapman v. U nited States , 111 S . Ct . 191 9 ( 1991 ) an d Nea l v. Un it ed St at es , 116 S.Ct. 763 (199 6), fro m hi s ca se . T he S upr em e Co urt he ld i n bo th Ch apm an an d Ne al that LSD im pregnated int o bl ott er

pa pe r is a ‘ m ixt ur e or sub stanc e’ c ont ai nin g L SD w ith in the m eanin g of the pe na lty

statut e; the re fo re the w ei ght of the c ar ri er m ed ium sho uld be in cl ud edin de te rm in in g t he ap pr op ria te sen te nc e fo r tr affi ck in g i n LSD. Ch apm an , 111 S . Ct . a t 19 24- 26; Ne al , 116 S. Ct. at 769. G rant avers, however, that neither Ch apm an nor Ne al inv olv ed li qui d L SD and s houl d be r ea d on ly in the co nt ex t o f LSD m ou nt edon a carr ie r m ed iu m su ch as b lo tt er p ap er.Gra nt conce des that consumer s can g et hig h by drinkingliquid L SD, although this is not 7 the way L SD is ty

pically marke ted. 8 Ine sse nc e, G rant i s arg uin g th at the L SD he re w as in anint er m ed ia te w hol es al e dis tr ibu tio n f

orm , unl ike the r et ai l c onsum er f orm f ound in Ch apm an an d Ne al . He claim s it is m uch too b ulkyand m

uch too d iluted to be m arketed dir ec tly to co nsum er s. I t i s m er el y tw o se parate sub stanc es c ont ai ne d to ge the r in 7 a via l, w ithno f

ixe d r at io b etw ee n th em . H e as se rt s th at the re is no e nf

old ing , no bond ing , no i m

pr eg na tin g. S im ilar to c lothe s c ont ai ne d inasui tc as e, or ind ivi dua ls c onf

ine d by ac ourtr oom , the L SD is m er el y e nc as ed in w at er , not m ixe d w ithit

or in it. b. T he G ov ernm en t’

s C ont en tio ns a s to theW

ei ght of the L SD I

ssu e T he gov er

nm en t ave rs that this is a str ai ght fo rw ar d c as e. T he statut e pr ovi de s f

or a10- y ear m an da tor

y m ini m um se nte nc e fo r poss es sio n w ithint en t t o dis tr ibu te 10 g ram s or

m or e of am ixt ur e or sub stanc e co nta ini ng a

de te ct ab le am ount of L SD . S ec tio n 84 1( b) (1 )( A )( v) . I nsof ar a s th e pe na lty

statut e is co nc er ne d, G rant p le d gu ilty

to co nspi ra cy

to dis tr ibu te aspe ci fi c am ount of dr ugs, i.e., 1 0 g ram s o r m or e. Id . A lth oughthe f

ac ts i n Ch apm an invol ved LSD m ount ed on a carr ier m edium , i. e. , blotter paper, the governm ent argues that the Suprem e Court9

ne ve rth el es s d efi ne d ‘m ix tu re’ acco rd in g t o i ts pl ai n a ndord in ary te rm s. Ch apm an , 111 S . Ct . a t 19 25- 26. I n th e ca se of li qui d L SD , the tw o c om pone nts ar e int er m ing le d, a lth oughthe y

c anpe rh ap s be r eg ar de d a s havin g ase parate ex is te nc e. Id . ( w he re W eb ste r’ s T hir d N ewI nte rn at ion al D ic tio nary 144 9 ( 1986 ) defines a “ m ixture” to includ e “ a portion of m atter c onsis ting o f tw o or m ore com ponent s that do no t bear a fixed proportion to one anoth er and that ho we ver th or ou gh ly comm in gl edare re ga rd edas r et ai ni ng a se pa rat e ex is te nc e”). The governm ent claim s that what G rant distributed, what he w as charged w ith , and wha t he ple d gu ilty to, m ee t the statut or

y c ri te ri a fo r the im

posi tio n of the ten y ear m andatory

m inim um sentence. In addition, the governm ent argues that i t i s th e w ei ght

of the li qui d L SD that sh oul d be c onsi de re d, not the w ei ght

of the pur e L SD , be ca

use the w ei ght

of the pur e L SD is so m inu sc ule that i t do es not ad equa te ly reflec t t he ser io us ne ss of t he cri m e, i.e., 2 52 6 d ru g- in du cedhi gh s. See Ca m ac ho , 261 F . 3d at 10 75, c iti ng United States v. T urner , 59 F. 3d 48 1, 486 (4 th Cir. 1995 )(quoting Sec tion 2 D1. 1(c), com m ent. ( n.16)). In suppo rt of its argum ent that the district court acted properly in this case, the gov er nm en t c ite s c as e lawf

ro m oth er c ir cu its hol din g th at

li qui d L SD is a

‘ m ixture or subst ance’ for purposes of the statutory m andatory

m inim um sentence, an d t ha t t he gu id el in es ran ge is tru m pe d b y Sect io n 5 G1.1 (b ). See U nited Sta tes v.10

M orga n , 29 2 F .3d46 0, 4 61 (5 Cir .), cert. denied , 123 S . Ct . 45 ( 2002 )( va catin g th guid elines sentence in liqui d LSD case and rem anding for im posit ion of 10-y ear m inim um sentence m andated by

Sec tion 8 41(b)(1)(A )(v)) ; see also United States v. Ke resztury , 293 F . 3d 7 50, 759 ( 5 Ci r. 200 2) (f oll ow ing M

orga n in liqu id LSD th ca se ); U nit ed Sta tes v . I

ngra m , 67 F. 3d 12 6, 129 (6 Cir. 1995 )(in pre-Ne al li qui d th L SD c as e, dir ec tin g di str ic t c ourt t o a ppl y m an da tor

y m ini m um se nte nc e on re m an d if gui de lin es r an ge is le ss) ; cf. Turner , 59 F. 3d at 491 -92 (in pre- Ne al liqui d LSD case suggesting that district court consid er on rem and whether statut or y m ini m um se nte nc e unde r Se ct ion841 (b )( 1) and S ec tio n 5G 1. 1( b) override otherwise applicable guid elines range). 2. T he Se co nd I

ssu e a. G rant’s Con tention s to the Vested D ownward Departu re at Re se nte nc ing

I ssu e G rant c la im s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

in fi ndi ng tha t S ec tio n 5G 1. 1( b) applied up on rem and. Citing no autho rity , he claim s that it does n ot applyto cases in whic h th e de fe ndant h as a lr ea dy be engr an te d adownw ar d de part ur e fr om the st atut ory m in im um . Whe re or din ar ily , G rant c la im s, S ec tio n 5G 1. 1( b) tr um ps the oth er

w ise applicable guid elines range of Se ction 2D1.1(c) , substituti ng the statut ory11

m ini m um of te n y ears , it

doe s no t a

ppl y on r em an d on ce ade fe ndant h as a lr ea dy earn ed adownw ar d de part

ur e unde r Se ct ion355 3( e) and S ec tio n 5K 1. 1. G rant co nc ed es that he is sur

pr ise d to f

ind no d ec isi ona l l awsqu ar el y a ddr es sin g th is issue. b. T

he G ov ernm en t’

s C ont en tio ns a s to theV

es te d D ow nw ard D ep arture at R e- Se nte nc ing I ssu e Inr eb utt al of

G rant’ s arg um en t tha t he ha s ave ste d r igh t t o have no statut or y m an dator

y m ini m um se nte nc e be a

ppl ie d onr em an d, the gov er nm en t ci te s U nit ed Sta tes v . Sti nson , 97 F.3d46 6 (1 1 Cir . 19 96 ). Sti nson holds that an th or igi na l se nte nc e is w ipe d aw ay by ava catur , le av ing the dis tr ic t c ourt w itha cl ean sl at e upo n wh ic h t o wri te at ade fen da nt ’s re-s en te nc in g. Id . a t 46 9. T he gov er

nm en t do es c onc ed e that G rant h ad the r igh t t o have aS ec tio n 5K 1. 1 m oti on f

ile d onhis be ha lf

a t r e- se nte nc ing . O ne w as f ile d. I n r es pons e, the dis tr ic t c ourt ha lve d G rant’ s or igi na l se nte nc e of 108 m onths t o 54 m onths. B. The Fi rs t Is su e - Th e W ei gh t o f the LS D 1. T he Statu tes and th e Sentencing Guidelines Se ct ion841 (b )( 1) (A )( v) pr ovi de s f or am an da tor

y m ini m um of 10 y ears ’ im pr iso nm en t f

or avio la tio n of

sub se ct ion( a) [ m ak ing it unl aw fu l t o kn ow ing ly

or int en tio na lly

m anuf ac tur e, dis tr ibu te , dis pe nse , or pos se ss w ithint en t t o12

man u f a c tu r e , d i s tr i b u t e , o r

d i s p e n s e , ac o n tr o l l e ds ub s t an c e ] i n v o l v i n g “1 0 g r a ms or m or e of am ixt ur e or sub stanc e co nta ini ng a

de te ct ab le a m ount

of [ L SD ] . ” T he se nte nc ing gui de lin es para lle l the statut or y langua ge and r equir es the ba se of fe nse le ve l t o be de te rmine ba se d up on the w ei ght of a“ m ixt ur e or sub stanc e co nta ini ng a detectable am ount of” L SD . Section 2D1. 1(c). 2. Sup re m e Co urt

Ca ses an d Se nte nc ing

G uid el ines’ A m en dm en t 48 8 In199 1, in Ch apm an , the S upr em e Co urt he ld tha t the phr as e “ m ixt ur e or subs tanc e co nta ini ng . . . . L SD ” in S ec tio n 84 1( b) (1 ) re fe rs to “ the w ei ght of the carr ier m edium

upon which the drug is m ount ed.” Ch apm an , 111 S . Ct . a t 19 29. T w o y ears late r, the se nte nc ing c om m iss ionpr om

ulg at ed an am en dm en t t o th e gui de lin es , r ed

uc ing the pe na lti es f

or tr af fi ck ing in carr ie r- m ount ed L SD by ca lc ulatin g ba se of

fe nse le ve ls, not

a t the w ei ght

of the L SD plu s c ar

ri er m ed ium as in Ch apm an , but

by usi ng a standard dos ag e fo rm

ula of 0. 4 m g. pe r dose of LSD (am en dm en t 4 88 ). See U.S.S.G. § 2 D1.1 (c), n . (H). In199 6, in Ne al , the S uprem e Court held that, when calculating penalties under the statute, am endm ent 488 d oes not ov ercom e Ch apm an ’ s de fi nit ionof

“ m ixture or subst ance, ” and principles of sta re de ci sis r equir e that i t a dhe re to its earl ie r de ci sio n in Ch apm an . Ne al , 116 S . Ct . a t 76 6. I n sum , the se nte nc ing co m m iss ionha s no auth or ity

to am en d th e pe na lty

statut e, the gui de lin es ’Counsel for Gr ant in this case a rgued bef ore the Supreme Court in Neal , raisingthe 8 ide nti c a l is su e a s h e do e s h e re , i. e ., that, a s th e se nte nc ingc omm iss ion is the a g e nc y

c ha rg e d w ith interpre tation of pena lty

statutes and expert in sentenc ing matters, its construction of Section 841(b)( 2) should be g iven def ere nce unde r Che v ro n U

.S .A . I nc . v . Na tural R eso urc es D e fe ns e Council, Inc. , 104 S.Ct . 2778 (1984). See Ne al , 116 S.Ct . at 766. The Supre me Court reje cted this argument in Neal , and not surprising ly , we r ejec t it here. 13 ca lc ulatio n is ind ep en de nt o f the statut or y c al cu la tio n, and the statut e co ntr ols if th ey co nf li ct . Id. at

768 . T he se nte nc ing c om m iss ion ’ s do se -b as ed

m ethod 8 cannot be squ ar ed

w ith Ch apm an . Id . 3. E le ve nth Ci rc uit

Pre ce de nt Gr ant’ s initial sent ence w as vacated and re m anded bythis court for resentencing b y

the district court in ligh t of Ca m ac ho , a t tha t t im e, ac as e of f ir st im pr es sio n. T his c ourt he ld i n Ca m ac ho that, a s to the se nte nc ing gui de lin es , w ith re gard to L SD c ont ai ne d inali qui d so lut ion , the w ei ght of the pur e L SD a lon e sh ou ldbe us edto asc ert ai n t he ap pr op ria te ba se off en se lev el . See also Turner , 59 F. 3d 4 81( pr ior

to Ne al , in l iqu id L SD c as e, f or pur pose s of the se nte nc ing gui de lin es , onl y

the w ei ght

of the pur e L SD sho uld

be use d inde te rm ini ng de fe ndant’ s ba se of

fe nse le ve l) ; U

nit ed Sta tes v . I

ngra m , 67 F. 3d 12 6, 128 (6 Cir. th 1995 ); U nit ed Sta tes v . J

orda n , 842 F . Su

pp. 103 1, 103 3- 34 ( M. D . T enn. 199 4) (i n liquid L SD c as e, onl y

the w ei ght

of the pur e L SD sho uld

be use d) . A s Ca m ac ho14

did not e xam ine the dr

ug w ei ght

iss ue in the c ont ex t of

the pe na lty

statut e, a s is pr es en t i n t hi s ap pe al , th is is an is su e o f fi rs t i m pr es si on in th is cir cu it . 4. O the r Circ uit

s’ Pre ce de nt T w o c ir cu its have he ld i n li qui d L SD c as es that, a lth oughthe w ei ght of the pure LS D a lone sho uld be usedin determ ining a defe ndant’s base off ense level unde r the se nte nc ing gui de lin es , adis tr ic t c ourt c oul d c onsi de r the w ei ght of the liqui d LSD when deter

m ining the applicabilityof the m andatory statutory m in im um . Se e M

orga n , 292 F . 3d 4 60; In gram , 67 F. 3d 12 6. Both case s are di st in gu is he d fr om

th e cas e b efo re u s, as , M orga n w as r ev ie w ed

by the F if th Ci rc uit f or pla in e rr or

and In gram w as de ci de d pr ior to Ne al . Never th el es s we fin d t he m he lp fu l i n o urdi sc us si on . Se e als o K er es ztu ry , 293 F. 3d 75 0 (5 Cir. th 2002 ). 5. Th e Fac ts Befo re Us M orga n m ost

c los el y a lig ns w iththe f

ac ts b ef or e us. A lth oughthe a m ount of pur e L SD in M

orga n w as le ss than 10 gr am s, Mo rg an ’ s gu ilty ple a inc lud ed

his poss es sin g, w ithint en t t o di str ibu te , 10 g ram s or m or e of L SD , tr igg er ing the te ny ear m in im

um sen te nc e m an da te d b y

Sect io n 8 41 (b )(1 )(A)(v ). M orga n , 292 F . 3d at 464-66. Under Section 5G1. 1(b), the M orga n co urt us ed

the statut or

y m ini m um be cau se itwas g reat er t ha n t he m ax im um sen te nc e u nd er t he gu id el in es . Id .15

(h old ing that the m ar

ke t- or ie nte d a

ppr oa chuse d in Ch apm an w ar rants inc lud ing the weight of the liquid so lutio n in determ ining a m andatory m inim um sentence). T he sam e is tru e in G rant’ s c as e. U nli ke the de fe ndant i n Ca m ac ho , Gr an t ’s ind ic tm en t c harg ed , and G rante d pl ea de d gu ilty to, ac ount

c ont ai nin g aspe ci fi c drug quan tity , i. e. , 10 or m ore gram s. A ccordingly , G rant fac ed a statutory m inim um sentence of ten y ears. Sec tion 8 41(b)(1)(A )(v); S ection 5G1.1(b). Si m ilarl y to the de fe ndant i n M

orga n , G rant w as inform ed by the district co urt at hi s in iti al se nte nc ing that the m ax im um statut or y pe na lty it c oul d im pose would be a sentence of im prisonm ent of “ not less th an ten y ears nor m ore than life. ” See not e 1 supra . Grant ackno wled ge d t o t he co ur t t ha t h e u nd ers to od . Whil e G rant e ar

ne stl y ur ge s us to ex te nd the w ei ght of the pur e L SD r at ion al e of Ca m ac ho to statuto ry

m inim um cases, our reading of Ch apm an m akes it clear that we m ay no t d o s o. Se e Ch apm an , 111 S . Ct . a t 19 26. W e conclude that the district court sho uld us e the w eight of the liqu id LSD in apply ing Grant’ s statuto ry m inim um sentence. U nder Ch apm an , liquid LSD can be ch arac te riz edas t he carr ie r m ed iu m of c ho ic e atth e who le sa le lev el . Id . L SD on b lotte r pa

pe r, L SD in ge l f

orm or L SD on a

sug ar c ube c anbe ch ar ac te ri ze d a s th e carr ie r m ed ium s of c hoi ce at the r et ai l e nd o f the dis tr ibu tio n ch ai n. Id . A s th e Su

pr em e Co urt no te d, L SD dr ug d ea le rs are f

re e to c hoos e the ir16

ow n c ar ri er m ed ium , sc rutin iz e its w ei ght , and, by so d oin g, a ct

to m ini m iz e the ir po te nt ia l s en te nc es . Id . at 1 92 9 n .6. C. T he Se co nd I

ssu e - V es te d D ow nw ard D ep arture at R e- Se nte nc ing I ssu e W ith out c iti ng any

auth or ity , G rant c la im s th at S ec tio n 5G 1. 1( b) doe s no t ap ply to ca se s onr em an d inw hic h th e de fe ndant h as a lr ea dy be engr an te d a downw ar d de part

ur e fr om the statut or

y m ini m um . T he obv iou s in va lid ity of thi s cl ai m m ay e xpl ai n w hy

it ha s no t be enhe re tof

or e as se rt ed

and d ec ide d. Gr ant claim s that once the district court m ade the decision to departure downwar d at his init ial sentencing, it becam e no long er a sentencing op tion, but an

“ accom plish ed historical fact, ” and, “ starting ov er” as if the downw ard departure ha d no t y et

“ ve ste d” w oul d, in es se nc e, pun ishG rant f or havin g su cc es sf

ull y ch al le ng edhi s s en te nc e. See North Caroli na v. P earce , 89 S . Ct . 207 2 ( 1969 ). H is arg um en t o ve rlo ok s t he factth athi s re su lt in g s en te nc e is ha lf t ha t fi rs t i m po se d. G rant d oe s a cknow le dge that the lawof thi s c ir cu it, a s w el l a s th at of six oth er c ir cu its is, a s age ne ra l m atte r, that whe n ase nte nc e is r em an de d onappe al , the se nte nc ing pr oc es s c om m en ce s a ga in de novo . See Stinson v. United States , 97 F. 3d 4 66, 469 ( 11 Ci r. 199 6) . T he va catur of G rant’ s or igi na l se nte nc e voi ds the th se nt en ce i n i ts en ti ret y

an d t he sl at e is wip edcle an . Id.17

T he dis tr ic t c ourt w as f

re e to r ec onstru ct

the se nte nc e uti liz ing any of the se nt en ce co m

po ne nt s. Id . ( ci ta tio ns o m itt ed ). H er e the dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y st art edat t he st atut ory

m in im um an d d ep art eddo wnwar d. See also United States v. H ea d , 178 F. 3d 12 05, 1206-08 (11 Cir. 1999 ). th V. CONCLUSION T he j udgm en t of

the dis tr ic t c ourt i s a ff

irm ed . AFFIR MED.