[DO NO T PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 10 20 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 1- cr-0 00 84 -KD-C-1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ver su s DANIEL DW IGHT BROWN , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l l Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Dece m be r 12 , 20 12 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, CARNES, andFAY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:

Case: 12-10209 Date Filed: 12/12/2012 Page: 1 of 7Afte r a jury tri al , Dani el Dwig htBro wn was co nv ic te d o f th ree c ou nt s o f

po ss es si on of afir earm

by a felo n i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 ), on e co un t of po ss es si on of a m

m un it io n b y

a fel on in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )(1 ), on e co un t o f po ss es si on wit h i nt en t t o d is tri bu te m or e th an 50 0 g ram s o f a m ix tu re o r subs ta nc e co nt ai ni ng a de te ct ab le am ou ntof m et ha m ph et am in e in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) , andon e co un t o f po ss es si on of afir earm du rin g adru g tra ffi ck in g o ffen se in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (c). Th e d is tri ctco urt s en te nc ed hi m to 18 8 m on th s i m

pr is on m en t fo r th e m et ha m ph et am in e d is tri bu ti on off en se , co nc urren t 1 20 m on th sen te nc es on each of t he § 9 22 (g )(1 ) co un ts , anda co ns ecu ti ve 60 m on th sen te nc e o n t he § 9 24 (c) c ou nt . Bro wn ch al le ng es hi s 1 88 m on th sen te nc e fo r hi s m et ha m ph et am in e di st rib ut io n c on vi ct io n, co nt en di ng th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredby app lying th e drug qu an ti ty find in g m ad e b y th e jury in asp eci al ve rd ic t fo rm in st eadof de te rm in in g t he “ ne t” dru g qua nt it y at s en te nc in g. He ar gu es th atth e sp eci al ve rd ic t fo rm

sh ou ldha ve in cl ud eda st at em en t o f th e req ui redst an da rdof p ro of for fin di ng th e am ou ntof dru gs in vo lv edinth e o ffen se . He als o a rg ue s tha t, i n o rd er to de te rm in e co rrec t d ru g q ua nt it y at s en te nc in g, the di st ric t co urt s ho ul d h av e subt ract edth e wei gh t o f pl as ti c co nt ai ne rs an d n on -co ns um ab le li th iu m fro m th e m et ha m ph et am in e m ix tu re’s g ro ss weig ht . 2 Case: 12-10209 Date Filed: 12/12/2012 Page: 2 of 7I.

Ina sp eci al ve rd ic t fo rm

th e jury fou ndth atBro wn “ po ss es se d wi th in te ntto di st rib ut e a m ix tu re an d s ub st an ce co nt ai ni ng a de te ct ab le am ou ntof m et ha m ph et am in e . . . weig hi ng 50 0 g ram s o r m or e.” Bro wn d idno t o bjec t t o t he ve rd ic t fo rm

or t he acco m

pa nyin g ju ry

in st ru ct io ns in th e d is tri ctco urt. At se nt en ci ng th e d is tri ctco urt re li edon th e dru g wei gh t d et erm in edby the jury to set Bro wn’s b as e o ffen se lev el . Bec au se Bro wn ch al le ng es th e sp eci al ve rd ic t fo rm for th e fi rs t t im e o n ap pe al , we rev ie w on ly for p la in erro r. See Un it edSta te s v . Rodrig ue z, 39 8 F .3d 12 91 , 12 98 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). W e “ m ay no t co rrec t an erro r th e d efen da ntfai le d t o rai se inth e d is tri ctco urt u nl es s t he re i s: (1) erro r, (2 ) th atis pl ai n, an d (3 ) th at affe ct s s ub st an ti al rig ht s.” Id . (qu ot at io ns m ark s o m it te d) . If all th ree o f th os e co nd it io ns are m et , we “ m ay th en ex erci se it s d is cret io n t o n ot ic e a fo rfei te d e rro r, bu t o nl y if (4 ) th e err orser io us ly affect s t he fai rn es s, i nt eg rit y , or p ub li c rep ut at io n of jud ic ia l p ro ceed in gs .” Id . W e h av e h el d t ha t a d is tri ctco urt m ay us e a s pe ci al ve rd ic t fo rm forth e jury to fin d t he am ou ntof d ru gs in vo lv edin anoff en se . See Un it edSta te s v . Clay , 35 5 F.3 d 1 28 1, 1 28 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4) (“ W e h ol d t ha t the re was no rev ers ib le erro r by subm it ti ng th e sp eci al ve rd ic t fo rm to th e jury to d et erm in e whe th er atlea st50 3 Case: 12-10209 Date Filed: 12/12/2012 Page: 3 of 7gr am s o f co cai ne were i nv ol ve d i n t he off en se .”). W e h av e n ev er h el d t ha t a sp eci al ve rd ic t fo rm

m us t re ci te th e st an da rdof p ro of , andin th e p res en t ca se th e di st ric t co urt i ns tru ct edth e jury onon ly one st an da rdof p ro of —p ro of be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t. Bro wn h as no t s ho wn t ha t t he re was an y erro r, m uc h l es s p la in erro r, by notrei te rat in g t ha t s ta nd ardof p ro of on th e sp eci al ve rd ic t fo rm . II. As fo r th e d is tri ctco urt’s d et erm in at io n o f th e am ou ntof m et ha m ph et am in e fo r se nt en ci ng pu rp os es , we rev ie w th e co urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs forcle ar erro r an d rev ie w de n ov o i ts in te rp ret at io n a ndap pl ic at io n o f th e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es . Uni te d S ta te s v . Jo hn so n, 6 94 F.3d11 92 , 11 95 (11 th Cir . 20 12 ). “ [T]he wei gh t o f a co nt ro ll edsubs ta nc e se t fo rth in th e [§ 2D1 .1(c ) drug qu an ti ty tab le ] refe rs to th e en ti re wei gh t o f an y

m ix tu re o r subs ta nc e co nt ai ni ng a de te ct ab le am ou ntof the co nt ro ll edsubs ta nc e.” U.S.S.G. § 2 D1.1 (c) n .(A). The jury fou ndth atweig htto be 50 0 g ram s o r m or e. The d is tri ctco urt re li edon th atfin di ng an d s etBro wn’s ba se off en se lev el at 3 2, wh ic h i s t he lev el ass ig ne d fo r po ss es si ng wit h t he in te nt to di st rib ut e atlea st50 0 g ram s b utles s t ha n 1 .5 k il og ram s o f m et ha m ph et am in e. Id . § 2 D1.1 (c)( 4) . The s am e b as e o ffen se lev el ap pl ie s fo r atlea st50 gra m s b ut le ss th an15 0 g ram s o f “ [m ]eth am ph et am in e (ac tu al ).” Id . “ Met ha m ph et am in e (actua l)” is “ th e wei gh t o f th e co nt ro ll edsubs ta nc e, it se lf, c on ta in edin th e m ix tu re 4 Case: 12-10209 Date Filed: 12/12/2012 Page: 4 of 7orsubs ta nc e.” Id . § 2 D1.1 (c)( 4) n.(A).

At t ria l the go ve rn m en t ca ll edas awit ne ss Alan Osh ea, an off ic er i n t he na rco ti cs di vi si on of t he Mo bi le Co un ty Sheri ff’s Offi ce wh o a ss is te d i n s earc hi ng th e sh edin th e b acky ardof B ro wn’s g ran dm ot he r’s ho us e whe re t he m et ha m ph et am in e co ok in g m at eri al s an d e qu ip m en t wer e d is co ve red . Thro ug h Osh ea, the go ve rn m en t i nt ro du cedin to ev id en ce t wo p ho to gr ap hs , each of wh ic h sh owe d am et ha m

ph et am in e m ix tu re i n apl as ti c co nt ai ne r on sca le s es tabl is hi ng a co m bi ne d wei gh t o f 77 0 g ram s. Des pi te th atev id en ce an d t he jury’ s fi nd in gs ba se d o n i t, Br own arg ue s tha t t he di st ric t co urt h adanin de pe nd en t dut y at se nt en ci ng to sethi s b as e o ffen se lev el by calcu la ti ng th e “ ne t” weig htof t ha t m ix tu re. Acco rd in g t o B ro wn, t ha t ca lc ul at io n s ho ul d h av e b eenm ad e b y subt ract in g t he weig htof “ cl earl y vi si bl e n on -co ns um ab le pi eces of l ithi um fro m th e m ix tu re’s g ro ss weig ht .” Br. of App el la ntat 1 8– 19 (fo ot no te s o m it te d) . In 1 Br own also ar gues in his brief to this Court that calculation of the net we ight of the 1 methamphetamine mixture require s subtractingthe weight of the plastic conta iners it was plac ed in for we ighingfrom the 770 grams total weight. In the district court, howe ver, B rown did not mention the weight of the conta iners. He did not make an a rgument based on the weight of the container s in his objections to t he pre sentenc e investig ation repor t or in his arguments to the court at either of his two sente nce he aring s. Br own’s ar gument was that he should not be held acc ountable for

more than 500 grams of me thamphetamine be causethe mix ture wa s not pure, consumable me thamphetamine but instead c ontained “sludg e” or “blob.” At the f

irst sentence hearing, the district court stated that “ my understandingof your objec tion is t he 770 grams of weight was sludg e.” D oc. 65 at 15. B rown re sponded, “B lob.” I d. At the sec ond sentenc e hearing, B rown a g ain ar gued that he should not “be held ac countable f or this sludge that was found.” D oc. 66 at 6. The district court re jected that argument and re lied on the jury ’s finding that Br own was a ccounta ble for mor e than 500 grams of me thamphetamine. B eca use B rown 5 Case: 12-10209 Date Filed: 12/12/2012 Page: 5 of 7supp ort o f hi s p os it io n, Br own rel ie s o n t hi s ap pl ic at io n n ot e to U.S.S.G. § 2 .D1.1 :

Mi xtur e o r subs ta nc e d oe s n otin cl ud e m at eri al s t ha t m us t b e se pa rat edfro m

th e co nt ro ll edsubs tanc e b efo re t he co nt ro ll ed subs ta nc e can be us ed . Exam pl es of s uc h m at eri al s i nc lu de th e fib erg la ss ina co cai ne /fi be rg la ss bo nd edsu it cas e, be es wax in a co cai ne /b ees wax st atue , andwast e wat er fro m anil li ci t l ab or at ory us edto m an uf

actur e a co nt ro ll edsubs tanc e. If s uc h m at eri al can no t read il y be sep arat edfro m

th e m ix tu re o r subs ta nc e th atap pr op ria te ly is co un te d i n t he Drug Quan ti ty T ab le , th e co urt m ay us e an y reas on ab le m et ho d t o app ro xi m at e th e wei gh t o f th e m ix tu re o r subs ta nc e to be co un te d. U.S.S.G. § 2 D1.1 (c)( 4) cmt. n .1. The no te s t o t he § 2 D1.1 (c) d ru g q ua nt it y tab le , ho wev er, p ro vi de m or e sp eci fic gu id an ce t o asen te nc in g c ou rt: “ Inth e cas e o f a m ix tu re o r subs ta nc e co nt ai ni ng . . . m etha m

ph et am in e, us e th e o ffen se lev el de te rm in edby the en ti re weig htof the m ix tu re o r subs ta nc e, orth e o ffen se lev el de te rm in edby the weig ht of th e . . . m et ha m

ph et am in e (ac tu al ), whi ch ev er i s g reat er.” Id . § 2 D1.1 (c)( 4) n.(B ) (em ph as is ad de d) . Even if t he weig htof t he “ no n- co ns um ab le li th iu m ” h ad raises a n argument about the we ight of the containe rs for the first time on appea l, we re view only for plain e rror . See Rodriguez, 398 F.3d at 1298. As w e have alre ady mentioned, to establish plain err or a de fenda

nt must show: (1) error , (2) that is plain, and ( 3) that af fec ts substantial rig hts. I d. Br own has not shown how much the plastic containe rs weigh. Wit hout any showing about the we ight of

the containe rs, thereis no way to know what the we ight of the methamphetamine mixture might be if the weight of the conta iners we re subtra cted f rom the total weight of 770 g rams. As a result, thereis no way

to know whether

subtractingthe weight of the container s would result in an amount of methamphetamine mix ture ke y ed to a lowe r base offe nse level than the one the district court a pplied. Thus, even a ssuming an e rror occur red, B rown ha s failed to show that it af

fec ts his subst antial rights. 6 Case: 12-10209 Date Filed: 12/12/2012 Page: 6 of 7be en sep arat edfro m th e m et ha m

ph et am in e m ix tu re t o d et erm in e th e “ actua l” weig htof the m et ha m

ph et am in e, an d e ve n i f th atam ou ntha d b eenke y edto a lo wer b as e o ffen se lev el in th e § 2D1 .1(c ) drug qu an ti ty tab le , th e d is tri ctco urt wou ldha ve be en bo un d t o app ly the hi gh er o ffen se lev el “ de te rm in edby the en ti re weig htof the m ix tu re o r subs ta nc e” b ecau se th atis th e sp eci fic rul e fo r m et ha m ph et am in e. Id . § 2 D1.1 (c)( 4) n.(B ). If th ere was an y erro r in sen te nc in g Bro wn b as edon th e jury’ s fi nd in g t ha t h e p os se ss edwit h t he in te ntto di st rib ut e a m ix tu re an d s ub st an ce co nt ai ni ng a de te ct ab le am ou ntof m et ha m ph et am in e weig hi ng 50 0 g ram s o r m or e, itwas h arm le ss . See Un it edSta te s v . Sarra s, 5 75 F.3 d 1 19 1, 1 22 0 n .39 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). AFFIRMED.

7 Case: 12-10209 Date Filed: 12/12/2012 Page: 7 of 7