NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 07a0089n.06 Filed: F ebrua

ry 5, 2007 No. 05-6565 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

UNITED STAT ES O F AMERICA, P laintif f-App ellee

v. CH ARLES E. WA DE , De fend ant -A ppe lla nt ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EAL FROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DI STRI CT OF TEN NESSEE

BEFORE: BOGG S, Chief Judge; MERRITT and MOORE, Circuit Judges MERRITT, Circuit Judge. I n this direct cr iminal appeal fr o m an advisory g uideline sentenc e of 168 months imprisonment, the d ef en d an t p led g uilty

under a plea a g ree ment to a conspirac y

to man u fa cture methamphetamine. H e ra ises two issues: (1) The D istrict Court erre d i n i t s conclusion, base d on a DEAdrug conver sion formula, that the c onspiracy ag ree ment

co n te mp late d a t le a s t 4 0 9

. 1 4 g r a ms o f me th b y c o n v e rti n g 3 g a ll o n s o f ti n c tu r e o f io d in e th a t the defe ndant possessed f

or us e i n t h e m eth manufa cturing proce ss into the final product. (2) The District Court failed to justify the rea sonablene ss of

the sentenc e in light of

the def endant’ s mental health proble ms. W e find no e rror in the conclusions of the D istrict Court and hence affi rm the jud g me nt.No. 05-6565

United States v. W

ade

-2-

The Io dine Dr ug C onv e r sio n F or m ula The amount of meth to be manufa cture d in a conspiracy is highly rele vant to the sentenc e; and, in the abse nce of

other e vidence , it may

be estimated, a s U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, comment (n.12) (2 00 4) make s clear; and

the se nte nc ingjud g e mus t of te n c ho os e “ be tw e e n a

numbe r o f p la

us ibl e estimates of drugquantity ,” U.S. v. Treadway , 328 F.3d 878, 885 ( 6th Cir.), cert. de nied , 5 40 U. S. 860 (2003); a finding to be revie wed on appea l unde r a “cle ar err or” standa rd, id. at 883. Without sug g esting an alter

native conve rsion formula, or pointing to any

case l aw re

jecting an iodine

conver sion formula, the de fenda nt simpl y argues that the g overnme nt must show, and the sentenc ing court must find, that the def endant “ had enoug h prec ursor c hemi ca ls and could conve rt all of the three g allons of iodine found on Aug ust 11, 2004, to me thamphetamine.” (De f. Br ief at 15.) The defe ndant spec ifically

acc epted the DEA 50% iodine conver sion ratio by expressly waiving the nee d to have the D EA expert testify , but rather simply contende d that the formula could not be used in the absenc e of pr oof that the other chemica l elements we re not only available for pur chase but on hand. This argument is contrary to our rec ent meth ca se, U.S. v. Thompson , 86 Fe d. App. 144 (2004) ( a copy

of which is appe nded to the g overnme nt’s brief) in which we se t out in detail the manufa cturing proce ss of mix ing iodine with hydrog en per ox ide to produce cry stal iodine. I n that

case we a cce pted as re asonable a method of estimating quantity using the 50% for

mula followed by the sentenc ing judg e in the instant ca se. The de fenda nt h as co n cede d the validity of the for

mula. The de fenda

nt’s argument that all of the other ingr edients for manufa cturing meth must be on hand in order to use the formula is without merit. A conspirac y ag ree ment contemplates f uture c riminal conduct a nd require s one or more overt a cts. The de fenda nt possessed iodine for t h e p u rp ose ofNo. 05-6565

United States v. W

ade

-3- c arr y ingou t th e c on sp ir a c y , a nd it w a s n ot e rr or

fo r t he Di str ic t Co ur

t to us e the c on ve rs ion

fo rm ula to esti m ate the sc ope of the conspirac y . The de fenda nt argues that bec ause the iodine is not inco rp orate d into the final drug , but is only a ca taly st, it shoul d not be consider ed for sentenc ing purp os e s. Ho we ve r, iod ine is an a bs olute ly ne c e ssa

ry pa rt of the manu fa c tur ing pr oc e ss, in t he ratio specifie d above. It is therefor e appr opriate to take its purchase and posse s s i o n i n t o account as an

o v e rta c ti nt h e c o n s p i r a c y.

The Re as ona ble ne ss o f the Se nt e nc e of 16 8 M ont hs The sente ncing judge imposed a g ui d el ine sentenc e at the ve ry bottom of the rang e for offe nse leve l 35, criminal history cate g ory 1, afte r g iving the de fenda nt a 3 level downwa

rd adjustment for acc eptanc e of r esponsibility . The de fenda nt does not object to the ca lculation of the offe nse leve l, but rather a rg ues that the court should have re duced the sentenc e bec ause of d ef en d ant’s mental ill nesses a nd substance a

buse. I t is clear f

rom the re cord that the court wa s sy mpathetic towar d the def

endant’ s mental and phy sical state a nd strong ly

sug g ested that the B urea

u of Prisons should plac e him in a fac ility in w hich he can rec eive tre atment. The c ourt discussed, and took seriously , its obli g ation to pr ovide a se ntence “not g reater than ne cessa ry ” takinginto account the g uideline rang e. I n light of the siz e of the defe ndant’s meth business involving multiple labs, the hig hly de str uc tiv e natur e of

the dr ug , th e ne c e ssi ty

to i nc a pa cit ate by

inc arc e ra

tio n me th manufa cture rs and de ter other s, we cannot say that the s entenc e was unrea sonable and should be set aside. The sentenc ing c ourt expressly g ave the defe ndant the opportunity to obje ct to the sentenc e afte r announc ing it, and the defe ndant did not object on re asonable ness g rounds but rathe r stated “ noNo. 05-6565

United States v. W

ade

-4- objection.” The court prope rly considere d the ca se, and we have found no clea r basis, and we are of fe re d n on e by

the de fe nd ant, fo r h old ingthat th e se nte nc e fa ils the “ re a so na ble ne ss” te st. Acc ording ly , the judg ment of the District Court is aff irmed.