2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 4-13-2005 

# U SA v . P hung P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 03-4544

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . P hun g " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1370. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1370T hi s cas e w as s ubm i t t ed t o t he pane l of R oth, C her t off a nd I r enas . J udge C her t off * s ubs equent l yr es i gned af t ers ubm i s s i on, butbefor e the fi l i ng of the opi ni on. T he dec i s i on is fil ed b ya q u o rum o f th e p an el. 2 8 U . S . C . § 4 6 (d). H onor abl e J os eph E. I r enas , Seni orU ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctJ udge forthe D i s t r i ctof ** N ew J er s ey , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NO T PRECEDEN TI AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 03- 4544 UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

v. DI E N VY P HUNG A ppel l ant

O n A p p e a l f

ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 02- cr - 689- 01) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le P etrese B . T u ck er Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a) : J anuary13, 2005 Bef or e : RO TH a nd CH ER TO FF, C i r cui t Judges , * a nd I RE N A S, Seni orD is tr i ct Judge. ** ( Fi l ed: A pr i l 13, 2005)OP I NI ON

IR E N A S , Seni orU

ni t ed Stat es D is tr i ct

Judge. A ppel l antD i en V yPhung w as convi ct ed i n t he East ern D i s t r i ctof P e n n s y lv a n ia o f

o n e c o u n t o f

c o n s p ir a c yto d is tr ib u te 3 ,4 m e th y le n e d io x ym e th a m p h e ta m in e (“ M D M A ” o r “ E c s ta s y ” ), i n v io la tio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 846, and one c ountof pos s es s i on w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e M D M A , i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) . H e appe al s t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i on fora D au bert hear i ng, i t s admi s s i on of the t es t i m onyof the D rug E nfor cementA dm i ni s t r at i on ( “D E A ”) c h e m is t, a n d its d e te rm in a tio n re g a rd in g th e q u a n tity o f d ru g s f o r s e n te n c in g p u rp o s e s . W e w ill d e n yh is a p p e a l. A ppel l antw as arr es t ed on Sept ember26, 2002, aft erarr angi ng the s al e of appr oxi m at el y7, 560 pi l l s of M D M A t o a w om an w ho w as cooper at i ng w i t h agent s fr om t he Penns y l vani a O ffi ce of t he A t t orneyG ener al , the D E A and the B ur eau of N ar cot i cs I nves t i gat i on and D rug C ont r ol . A gent s s ei zed thr ee M D M A pi l l s handed t o t he w om an byA ppel l ant . A ppel l ant ’ s co- cons pi r at or , Son T hanh Le ( “Le”) , w as appr ehende d byt he U p p er M erion T o w n sh ip P o li ce , w h o seize d 7 , 5 6 0 p il ls from the b ac k o f L e’s c ar. O n O ct ober23, 2002, t he gr and j uryr eturned i ndi ctm ent s agai ns tA ppel l antand L e , ch a rg in g th e m w ith c o n sp ira c yto d istrib u te M D M A a n d p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to di s t r i but e M D M A . J udge Petr es e Tuckergr ant ed A ppel l ant ’ s m ot i on fors ever ance onL e w as convi ct ed of both count s aft era thr ee da ytr i al , begi nni ng on M ar ch 4, 2003. 1 D ece m ber16, 2002. 1 A ppel l antfi l ed a mot i on i n l i m i ne on M ay2, 2003, r eques t i ng thatthe D i s t r i ct C o u rtli m itthe testi m o n yo f Je n n ifer E sp ino sa (“ E sp ino sa” ), a D E A ch em istan d ex p ert w i t nes s fort he governm ent , bas ed on herus e of a n i m pr opers ampl i ng m ethod. A ppel l ant r eques t ed thatJ udge Tuckerhol d a hea r i ng i n acc or dance w i t h D auber tv. Mer r el lD ow P har m aceut i cal

s , I nc. , 509 U . S. 579 ( 1993) . O n M ay5, 2003, J udge Tuckerdeni ed the m o tio n . A p p e llan t’s tria l b e g a n o n M a y6 , 2 0 0 3 . A p p e llan t re n e w e d h is o b jec tio n s to cert ai n por t i ons of Espi nos a’ s t es t i m ony , and cr os s - exami ned Espi nos a r egar di ng the s ampl i ng m ethod fort es t i ng t he pi l l s . ( Supp. A pp. I I , 376, 394- 98. ) A ppel l antw as found g u il tyo n b o th co u n ts on M ay9 , 2 0 0 3 . O n N o v em b er 2 3 , 2 0 0 3 , the D istri ct C o u rt i m pos ed a s ent ence of 132 m ont hs i m pr i s onm ent , thr ee y ear s s upervi s ed r el eas e, a fi ne of $ 2 0 ,0 0 0 a n d a sp e c ial a ss e ss m e n t o f $ 2 0 0 . A p p e llan t f

iled a tim e lya p p e a l w ith th is C o u rt.

II. W e r evi ew a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s rul i ng r egar di ng the admi s s i bi l i t yof expe r tt es t i m ony f o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . U

n itedS ta tes v . M

a th is , 2 6 4 F .3 d 3 2 1 , 3 3 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). A d istric t co u rt’s d e ter m in a tio n re g a rd in g th e q u a n tityo f d ru g s f o r se n ten c in g p u rp o se s is re v ie w e d f

o r c le a r e rr o r. U

ni t ed Stat es v. Y

eung , 2 4 1 F . 3 d 3 2 1 , 3 2 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ).T h e f ir st co n tai n er inc lud ed p il ls th at w ere sim il ar in a p p ea ran ce , b u t som e w ere 2 s t amped w i t h a hor s e l ogo and s om e w er e s t amped w i t h a fi s h l ogo. T he s econd gr oup of pi l l s w er e w etand s pongy . T he thi r d gr oup cons i s t ed of f ours i m i l arpi l l s , eac h w i t h t he lo g o o f a n o m e g a o r a c irc le w ith a w e d g e in it. E s pi nos a t es t ed 29 pi l l s of ea ch l ogo t ype fr om the fi r s tcont ai ner , 28 pi l l s fr om the 3 s econd c ont ai nerand al l fourpi l l s i n the thi r d gr oup. A col ort es ti s per form ed byaddi ng s m al l s ampl es of the i ndi vi dual pi l l s t o var i ous 4 r eage nt s , and i f the r eage nttur ns a part i cul arcol or , the part i cul arpi l l cont ai ns the s ubs t ance t he r eage ntt es t ed for . I n thi s i ns t ance , a s ampl e fr om eac h pi l l w as combi ned w i t h s odi um ni t r opr es i de, w hi ch w i l l turn cobal tbl ue w hen M D M A i s added t o t he re a g e n t. T h e re a g e n t tu rn e d b lu e f o r e v e ryp ill tes ted b yE sp in o sa , p re su m p tiv e ly i n d i c a t i n g t h a tt h e p i l l s c o n t a i n e d M DM A. A sa m p le o f

th e item to b e tes ted is in jec ted in to th e g a s c h ro m a to g ra p h , w h ich w ill 5 s epar at e the s ampl e i nt o i t s i ndi vi dual component s . T he mass s pectr om et erw i l l pr oduce a cha r act er i s t i c s pectrum foreac h t ype of mol ecul e i n t he component s , w hi ch ena bl es t he m ol ecul e t o be i dent i fi ed. T hi s t es ti ndi cat ed thatthe pi l l s cont ai ned M D M A , as w el l as ace t ami nophen and met hamphet ami ne. III . A pp el l ant ar gu es that the D i stri ctC ou rtw as r equi r ed t o hol d a D au berthear i ng as a res ultof h i s object i on s t o the sam pli ng m et ho do l og yem ploy ed b yE spi no sa. E spi no sa t es t i fi ed thats he fol l ow ed the s ampl i ng pl an deve l oped bythe D E A s t at i s t i cal depart m ent t o s el ectw hi ch of the 7, 560 pi l l s t o t es t . ( Supp. A pp. I I , 385- 86. ) She t es t ed the thr ee p ills h a n d e d to th e c o o p e ra to r b yA p p e lla n t, a n d f o u n d a ll th re e to c o n ta in M D M A . E s pi nos a di vi ded the r emai ni ng pi l l s i nt o t hr ee c ont ai ner s . E s pi nos a dr ew handful s of 2 pi l l s outof ea ch cont ai nerand r andoml ys el ect ed a s etnum berof pi l l s t o t es t , as d e ter m in e d b yth e sa m p lin g m e th o d o lo g y . E sp in o sa th e n p e rf o rm e d tw o tes ts o n th e p ill s 3 w hi ch r evea l ed thatal l of the pi l l s t es t ed cont ai ned M D M A , a col ort es t and a ga s 4 ch rom o tog rap h y/m ass s p ec tr o m etrytest . A total of 9 3 p il ls w ere test ed an d all w ere 5A s t at ementi n t he tr i al r ecor d byA ppel l ant ’ s tr i al couns el i ndi cat es thatR ubi n i s t he 6 C hai rof the St at i s t i cs D epart m entatH arvar d U ni ver s i t y . H ow ever , the r epor tpr epar ed byR ubi n does noti ndi cat e thi s , norhas A ppel l antpr ovi ded the cur r i cul um vi tae o f h is p u rp o rte d e x p e rt. f o u n d to c o n ta in M D M A . E sp in o sa a lso g ro u n d u p a n u m b e r o f p ill s f ro m e a c h c o n tain e r, an d tes ted th is c o m p o site to d e ter m in e th e p e rc e n tag e b yw e ig h t o f M D M A in th e tes ted p ill s. F ro m th is cal culat i on , she extr apo l at ed the t otal w ei gh tof M D M A i n the 7, 56 0 p i l l s. E spi no sa d e t e r mi n e d t h a tt h e t o t a l we i g h to f t h e p i l l s wa s 2 , 3 6 7 g r a ms , a n d th e a mo u n to f M DM A p re s e n t in th o s e p ills w a s 1 5 2 .2 g ra m s . A ppel l antar gues t hatE s pi nos a’ s s el ect i on of pi l l s t o t es tw as notr andom, s o her ex tr ap o lat ion s fro m tho se test resu lt s are inv ali d . A t tri al an d o n ap p ea l, A p p ell an t of fe rs t he expe r tr epor tof D onal d R ubi n of D at amet r i cs R es ear ch, I nc. , w hi ch s t at es thatthe r es ul t s of a t es ton a s ampl e ca n onl ybe extr apol at ed t o t hos e i t ems thatcoul d have be en in th e sa m p le. A p p e llan t co n ten d s th a t E sp in o sa ’s te st re su lts c a n o n lyb e e x tra p o late d to 6 t he pi l l s i n t he handf

ul s s he s el ect ed fr om eac h cont ai ner , and notthe ent i r e cont ent s of t he cont ai ner s , beca us e the pi l l s noti n herhandful s had no cha nce t o be i ncl uded i n t he s a m p le . I n addi t i on t o hol di ng a D a u b e rt h ea ri n g , A p p ell an t fu rth er c o n tend s tha t th e c o u rt s houl d have e xcl uded Espi nos a’ s t es t i m onyr egar di ng the extr apol at i on of the t ot al w ei ght . A ppel l antal s o ar gues t hatJ udge Tuckers houl d nothave r el i ed on the extr apol at ed t ot al w ei ghtof the M D M A i n s ent enci ng hi m , and i ns t ead s houl d have us edo n ly th e a c tu a l w e ig h t o f M D M A in th e p ills te s te d b yE s p in o s a . T h e U n ited S tate s c o n ten d s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in deny i ng A ppel l ant ’ s r eques tfora D a u b e rt hear i ng orperm i t t i ng E s pi nos a t o t es t i fyabout t he s ampl i ng m ethod s he us ed t o t es tthe pi l l s . T he U ni t ed St at es ar gues thatthe s ampl i ng m ethod us ed byE s pi nos a has been a ppr oved bythi s C our t , and thatthe j uryw as ent i t l ed t o hearevi dence aboutE s pi nos a’ s t es tr es ul t s . T he U ni t ed St at es al s o emphasi zes thatt he i s s ue fort he j ur yw as nott he t ot al quant i t yof the drug, butw hetherA ppel l antpos s es s ed a n ya m o u n t o f

M D M A w ith in ten t to d istrib u te. F in a lly , the U n ited S tate s c o n ten d s th a t it w as notcl earerr orforJ udge Tuckert o r el yon E s pi nos a’ s es t i m at e i n i m pos i ng a s ent ence . A. D a u b e rt hear i ng I n D au bert , t he Supr eme C our thel d thatFed. R . E vi d. 702 pl ace s a s peci al o b lig a tio n u p o n th e trial ju d g e to “ e n su re th a t an ya n d a ll sc ien tific tes tim o n yis n o t o n ly re lev a n t, bu t re liab le.” 5 0 9 U .S . at 5 8 9 ; s ee al s o Kum ho Ti r e C o. v. C ar m i chael , 52 6 U. S. 137, 147 ( 1999) ( appl y i ng s t andar d es t abl i s hed i n D au bertto a ll ex p e rt tes tim o n y ). T h is C our ts t at ed i n I

n r e Paol i R ai lr oad Y

ar d P C B Li t igat i on , 35 F. 3d 717, 742 ( 3d C i r . 1994) (P a o liII ), th a t “ D a u b e rt hol ds t hatan i nqui r yi nt o t he r el i abi l i t yof s ci ent i fi c evi dence u n d e r R u le 7 0 2 re q u ir e s a d e te rm in a tio n a s to its s c ie n tif ic v a lid ity.” D istri ct co u rt s h av e c o n side rab le l ati tud e in d ec iding h o w to p erf o rm their D au bert g a te k e e p in g f

u n c tio n . Kum ho T

i re , 5 3 6 U . S . at 15 2 . T ri al j u d g es h av e “ the d iscreti o n ary author i t yneede d bot h t o avoi d unnece s s ary‘ r el i abi l i t y ’ pr ocee di ngs i n or di narycas esw h ere the re li ab il ityo f a n ex p ert’s m etho d s is pro p erlytake n fo r gra n ted, an d to req u ir e

appr opr i at e pr ocee di ngs i n t he l es s us ual orm or e compl ex ca s es w her e ca us e for ques t i oni ng t he expe r t ’ s r el i abi l i t yar i s es . ” I d. T he Thi r d C i r cui thas hel d t hatdi s t r i ct cour t s ar e notr equi r ed t o hol d D au berth e a rin g s, b u t m a yf o llo w th e c o u rse th e yse e f it t o d e te rm in e th e re lia b ility o f e x p e rt te s tim o n y . O ddi v. For d Mot orC om pany , 234 F. 3d 136, 154 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( ci t i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. D ow ni ng , 7 5 3 F . 2 d 1 2 2 4 , 1 2 4 1 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 5 )). T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on bydecl i ni ng t o hol d a D au bert hear i ng i n r es pons e t o A ppel l ant ’ s chal l enge t o t he t es t i m onyof Espi nos a. A s i n O ddi , t he A ppel l ant“does noteven be gi n t o s ugges thow s uch a he ar i ng w oul d have a dvance d hi s pos i t i on, and w e ca n notbegi n t o i m agi ne thati tw oul d have. ” I d. T he s ampl i ng m ethod empl oy ed byE s pi nos a w as pr evi ous l yappr oved bythi s C our tagai ns ts i m i l ar c h a lle n g e s b yc ri m in a l d e f e n d a n ts . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. D ent , 149 F. 3d 180, 190- 91 ( 3d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ); U

ni t ed Stat es v. McC ut chen , 9 9 2 F .2 d 2 2 , 2 5 -2 6 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). J udge Tucker ’ s deci s i on i s es peci al l yappr opr i at e gi ven thatA ppel l antdi d not b rin g a n o v e l ch a llen g e to th e sa m p lin g m e th o d , n o r d id h e re lyo n a n yn e w o r sp e c if ic f a c ts in o b

je c tin g to E s p in o s a ’s te s tim o n y . C f. U n itedS ta tes v . Mitch e ll , 365 F. 3d 215, 246 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( “Thus a di s t r i ctcour tw oul d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on byl i m i t i ng, i n a pr opercas e, t he s cope of a D a u b e rt hear i ng t o novel chal l enges t o t he admi s s i bi l i t yof late n t f in g e rp rin t id e n tific a tio n e v id e n c e – o r e v e n d isp e n sin g w ith th e h e a rin g a lto g e th e r if no novel chal l enge w as r ai s ed. ”) . O n appea l , he r el i es onl yon a r epor tfr om a s t at i s t i ci anT r i al couns el s t i pul at ed thatE s pi nos a w as qual i fi ed as a for ens i c che m i s t . ( Supp. 7 A p p . I, 3 7 8 . ) t hatw as pr epar ed foranothercas e, w hi ch does notaddr es s drug t es t i ng gener al l yort he D E A s ampl i ng m ethod ati s s ue her e. B . A dm i s s i on of Espi nos a’ s t es t i m ony N ordi d t he D i s t r i ctC our terri n admi t t i ng E s pi nos a’ s t es t i m onyr egar di ng her ex tr ap o lat ion o f th e total w eigh t of the M D M A co n tai n ed in the p il ls. A p p ell an t’ s 7 ar gum entt hatE s pi nos a s houl d have r andoml ydr aw n eac h pi l l di r ect l yfr om the cont ai ner s , r athert han fr om a handf ul of pi l l s dr aw n fr om thos e cont ai ner s , does not convi nce us t hatherm ethodol ogyw as nots ci ent i fi cal l ys ound. R ubi n’ s r epor tcr i t i ci zes e x tra p o latio n s f

ro m sa m p les d ra w n b ya sy ste m a tic n o n ra n d o m m e th o d , su c h tak in g o n ly everyfi ft i eth uni ti n a l i s t . I ti s notatal l cl earw hetherR ubi n’ s r epor thas anyt hi ng t o s ay a b o u t d ru g te s tin g o r E s p in o s a ’s p a rt ic u la r m e th o d f o r s a m p lin g th e p ills . D au bert ’ s r el i abi l i t yr equi r ementdoes nots eta hi gh barforthe admi s s i bi l i t yof e x p e rt te s tim o n y . S ee , e.g. P a o liII, 3 5 F .3 d a t 7 4 4 -4 5 . M o re o v e r, D au bertdoes not r equi r e a di s t r i ctcour tt o l ook atw hethera pr opos ed expe r tcoul d have pe r form ed hi s or h e r a n a lysis in a b e tte r m a n n e r. S ee Ka n n a n ke ril v. T erm inex Int’l , 128 F. 3d 802, 809 ( 3d C ir. 1 9 9 7 ); P a o liII, 3 5 F . 3 d at 74 4 (ob serv ing that “g o o d g rou n d s” f o r an ex p ert’s o p i n i o n ma ye x i s t“ e v e n i f t h e j u d g e th i n k s th a ta s c i e n t i s t ’ s me t h o d o l o g yh a s s o me f l a ws s u c h th a t if

th e yh a d b e e n c o rr e c te d , th e s c ie n tis t w o u ld h a v e re a c h e d a d if f e re n t r e s u lt” ). D au berthel d t hat“[v] i gor ous cr os s - exami nat i on, pr es ent at i on of contr aryevi dence , andcar eful i ns t ruct i on on t he bur den of pr oof ar e the tr adi t i onal and appr opr i at e means of

a tta c k in g s h a k yb u t a d m is s ib le e v id e n c e .” 5 0 9 U .S . a t 5 9 6 . A ddi t i onal l y , s ever al ot herfac t or s s upporta fi ndi ng thatE s pi nos a’ s m ethodol ogy i n extr apol at i ng t he t ot al w ei ghtof the M D M A w as r el i abl e, and thatherconcl us i on w as bas ed on “good gr ounds . ” The sa m pl i ng pr ocedur e w as des i gned and a ppr oved bythe D E A s t at i s t i cal depart m ent , and appe ar s t o be the s t andar d pr ocedur e amongstl aw e n f o rc e m e n t f

o re n sic c h e m ists f

o r d e ter m in in g th e to tal w e ig h t o f a p a rticu lar d ru g w ith in a bl ended s ubs t ance . I n A ppel l ant ’ s cas e, al l pi l l s w er e s ei zed a tthe s ame l ocat i on dur i ng a s i ngl e att empt ed s al e. T he s ei zed pi l l s w er e di vi ded i nt o cont ai ner s bas ed on s i m i l ar a p p e a r a n c e a n d ma r k i n g s . E v e r yp i l l E s p i n o s a t e s t e d c o n t a i n e d M DM A. C . Sent enci ng I tw as notcl earerr orfort he D i s t r i ctC our tt o i m pos e a s ent ence of 132 m onths i m pr i s onm entbas ed on Espi nos a’ s extr apol at i on of the t ot al w ei ghtof M D M A i n t he s ei zed pi l l s . A tt he s ent enci ng hear i ng, J udge Tuckers t at ed: “[Espi nos a’ s ] t es t i m onyw as convi nci ng t o t hi s C our tand the j urythatbas ed on the amountof pi l l s – t he numberof p ills th a t w e re a c tu a lly te s te d , the i nf or m at i on could be ex tr apol at ed and s he coul d gi ve u s w h e th e r o r n o t th e p ills w e re a ll M D M A .” (S u p p . A p p . II I, 5 3 8 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ).) Fort he r eas ons s t at ed above , w e bel i eve thatJ udge Tuckerappr opr i at el yr el i ed on E s pi nos a’ s es t i m at i on of the t ot al w ei ghtof the M D M A . I n McC ut chen, th is C o u rt h e ld th a t: I f a de fenda ntchal l enges a drug quant i t yes t i m at e bas ed on an e xtr apol at i on fr om a t es ts ampl e, t he governm entm us ts how , and the courtm us tfi nd, that

### P rio r to th e A m en dm ent, th e D ru g E qu iv alen cy T ab les inth e C o mm entary to § 2 D 1 .1 8 

### estab lish edth at o n e g ram o f M D M Aw as equ iv alent to th irty-f iv e g ram s o f

m arij u an a. Am e ndm e nt

609 c hange d the e qui va l e nc y t o fi ve hundr e d gr am s of m ari juana . The Am e ndm e nt

be c am e e ffe c t i ve on May 1, 2001. th e re is a n a d e q u a te b a sis in f a c t f o r th e e x tra p o latio n a n d th a t th e q u a n tity w as det erm i ned i n a mannercons i s t entw i t h acc ept ed s t andar ds of r e l i a b i l i t y. 992 F. 2d at25- 26. T he evi dence i n the r ecor d s uppor t s the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s det erm i nat i on t hatt her e w as an ade quat e bas i s i n fac tforthe extr apol at i on and thatthe t ot al quant i tyof M D M A w as c alcu lat ed in a re li ab le m an n er. A ppel l antal s o as s er t s t hatt he 132 mont h s ent ence i s exce s s i ve bec aus e s ent ence s o f m o re tha n ten y ea rs fo r M D M A o ff en ses w ere o n lyinten d ed fo r hig h -l ev el traf fick ers w hos e conduc ti nvol ved atl eas t8, 000 pi l l s . A ppel l antdr aw s thi s ar gum entfr om the r eas ons s t at ed forA m endment609, w hi ch cha nged the mar i j uana e qui val encyfor M DM A. U. S. S. G . M

anualsu p p l. t o a p p . C , am . 6 0 9 , cm t. (2 0 0 1 ) (“ T h e p e n a ltylev e ls 8 cho sen fo r M D M A off

enses provide fi ve y ear s entences for ser i ou s traffi ckers ( t ho se w hos e r el evantconducti nvol ved atl eas t800 pi l l s ) and t en y ears ent ence s forhi gh- l evel tr af fick ers (tho se w h o se re leva n t con d u ct i n v o lved at l ea st 8,00 0 p il ls) . ”). C om m ent aryt o t he G ui del i nes i s gener al l ybi ndi ng on a s ent enci ng court , exce pt i n cert ai n ci r cumst ance s . T he Supr eme C our ti n U . S. v. St i ns on h e ld th a t “c o m m e n tar yin th e G u id e lin e s M a n u a l th a t in ter p re ts o r e x p lain s a g u id e lin e is a u th o ritativ e u n les s it vi ol at es t he C ons t i tut i on ora fe der al s t atut e, ori s i ncons i s t entw i t h, ora pl ai nl yerr oneous r eadi ng of, t hatgui del i ne. ” 508 U . S. 36, 38 ( 1993) . H er e, the comm ent aryi s i ncons i s t entw ith § 2 D 1 .1 a n d th e D ru g E q u iv a le n c yT a b le s , a n d th e re f o re is n o t a u th o ri ta tiv e . T he U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on i nt ended thats ent ence s forcr i m es i nvol vi ng M D M A be ca l cul at ed bas ed on w ei ght , and noton t he numberof uni t s , as evi dence d byt he D rug Q uant i t yT abl e cont ai ned i n § 2D 1. 1 and the D rug E qui val ency T a b les c o n tain e d in th e A p p lica tio n N o tes f o r th e g u id e lin e . A m e n d m e n t 6 0 9 itse lf sp e a k s in ter m s o f

w e ig h t, i n d ica tin g th a t th e re f e re n c e to sp e c if

ic p ill q u a n tit ies re f

lec ts onl yan es t i m at e of the equi val entnum berof pi l l s . T he D i s t r i ctC our tcorr ect l ys ent ence d A p p e llan t in a c c o rd a n c e w ith th e D ru g E q u iv a len c yT a b les a n d n o t th e c o m m e n ts to A m endment609.

I V. Fort he r eas ons s etfor t h above, the dec i s i ons of the East ern D i s t r i ctof P enn sy l van i a den y i ng A pp el l ant’ s m oti on i n li m i ne, adm i t t i ng the tes t i m on yof E spi no sa w i t houtr es t r i ct i ons and s ent enci ng A ppel l anti n r el i ance on t he extr apol at ed t ot al w ei ght of the M D M A ar e af

fi r m ed.