T he ca s e i s unani m ous l yor der ed s ubm i t t ed w i thoutor al ar gum ent * pur s uantt o Fed. R . A pp. P. 34( a) ( 2) and 10th C i r . R . 34. 1( G ) . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; nevert hel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A u gu s t22,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, v. M A RC U S TA RI N ELL I S, D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 05- 7136 ( D. C. No . CR - 0 5 - 5 3 - 0 1 - WH) (E .D . O k la .)

OR DER AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e KELLY , M c KAY , and LU CE RO , C i rcui tJudg es. A ju ryfo u n d M a rc u s E lli s g u iltyo f c o n sp ira c yto p o ss e ss w ith in ten t to d i s t r i b u t e me t h a mp h e t a mi n e , c o c a i n e , a n d c o c a i n e b a s e i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 1 U. S . C. § 846 ( “C ountO ne”) , and of pos s es s i on w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e and di s tr i but i on of fi ve orm or e gr ams of met hamphet ami ne i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) & (b )( 1 )( B ) ( “ C o u n t T w o ” ). H e w as s ent ence d t o 361 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm entfor eac h count , t o be s erved conc ur r ent l y . O n di r ectappea l befor e us , E l l i s br i ngs“C ooki es ” ar e r ound bl ocks of cr ack c ocai ne. Sm i th t es t i fi ed thatt he 1 cooki es i n t hi s cas e w er e appr oxi m at el ys i x i nches i n di amet er , one i nch thi ck, a n d w e ig h e d a b o u t o n e p o u n d . - 2 - tw o iss u e s. F irst, h e a p p e a ls h is c o n v ictio n fo r C o u n t O n e , arg u in g th a t th e re is i nsuffi ci ent evi den ce t o sup po rtthe jury ’s verdi ctthat he con spi red t o p ossess w ith in ten t to d istrib u te fiv e o r m o re g ra m s o f c o c a in e b a se . S e c o n d , in r e g a rd to C ountT w o, E l l i s ar gues t hatexpertt es t i m onyr egar di ng the t ot al amount of m ethamphet ami ne he pos s es s ed w as pr es ent ed i n vi ol at i on of the s t andar ds and pr ocedur es es t abl i s hed i n D aubertv. M err el l D ow Phar m s . , I nc. , 509 U . S. 579 ( 1993) , “and s houl d be s t r i cken a nd notr el i ed upon bythe J udge ats ent enci ng. ” W e exe r ci s e j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291 and AF F I RM . I B etw een A pr i l 2004 and M ar ch 2005, t he governm entconduct ed an u n d erc o v er n arc o ti cs sa les i n v esti g ati o n in P ittsbu rg C o u n ty , O k laho m a. A s p art of thi s i nves t i gat i on, a pai d confi dent i al i nform antw or ki ng fort he governm ent m ade a seri es of m et ham ph et am i ne p urchases fr om E l l i s. T h e in v e stig a tio n led to E l l i s ’ s arr es tand s ubs equentt r i al . A tt r i al , K r i s t i na Sm i th t es t i fi ed t o pur chas i ng a n d re se lli n g , o n E lli s’s b e h a lf, m u lti p le “ c o o k ies ” o f c o c a in e b a se , co m m o n ly r efe r r ed t o as “cr ack, ” as w el l as m ethamphet ami ne. A j uryfound El l i s gui l tyof 1 cons pi r acyt o di s t r i but e fi ve orm or e gr ams ea ch of met hamphet ami ne and c ocai ne bas e and 500 orm or e gr ams of coc ai ne pow deri n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 846,- 3 -

and of pos s es s i on w i t h i nt entt o di s tr i but e fi ve orm or e gr ams of m e th a m p h e ta m in e in v io la tio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 (a )( 1 ) & (b )( 1 )( B ). II E l l i s cl ai m s t hatt her e w as i ns uffi ci entevi dence t o s uppor thi s convi ct i on fo r c o n sp ira c yto d istrib u te c o c a in e b a se b e c a u se th e o n lyp e rso n tes tify in g to h is i n v o l v e m e n tw i t h c o c a i n e b a s e d i d n o tk n o w th a tc r a c k w a s c o c a i n e b a s e . We r evi ew s uffi ci encyof the evi dence cl ai m s de novo. U ni t ed St at es v. H i ggi ns , 282 F. 3d 1261, 1274 ( 10t h C i r . 2002) . W e mustcons i dert he evi dence i n the l i ght m o st fa v o ra b le to th e g o v e rn m e n t an d d e ter m in e w h e th e r a re a so n a b le ju ryc o u ld h a v e fo u n d th e d e fe n d a n t g u ilty o f th e c ri m e c h a rg e d b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t. U n ite d S ta te s v . H a m ilto n , 4 1 3 F .3 d 1 1 3 8 , 1 1 4 3 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). E l l i s focus es hi s ar gum enton an i s ol at ed bi tof t es t i m onybySm i th, t he key w i t nes s t o E l l i s ’ s i nvol vementw i th coca i ne bas e. B eca us e Sm i th s t at ed thats he w as unfami l i arw i t h t he t erm “coc ai ne bas e, ” El l i s ar gues t her e i s i ns uffi ci ent ev iden ce to su p p o rth is co n v ict ion fo r co n sp ir ac yto d istri b u te co ca ine b ase . In addi t i on, E l l i s at t empt s t o cr eat e an i s s ue overSm i th’ s us e of the t erm “cr ack” as oppos ed t o “coc ai ne bas e. ” H ow ever , ourcas es have r ecogni zed thatas a mat t er of l aw , “[c ] ocai ne bas e . . . as us ed i n the fe der al s t atut e [§ 841( a) ] , i ncl udes cr ack. ” U ni t ed St at es v. M cI nt yr e, 997 F. 2d 689, 709 n. 33 ( 10th C i r . 1993) . See al so U nit ed S t at es v. T hu rm on d, 7 F . 3d 94 7, 94 9 (10th C i r. 19 93 ) ( “crack” i s a “s l ang t erm forcoca i ne bas e”) ; U . S. S. G . § 2D 1. 1( c) N ot es ( s t at i ng that“coc ai ne- 4 -

bas e” means “cr ack” and “c r ack i s the s tr eetname fora form of coc ai ne bas e, us ual l ypr epar ed bypr oces s i ng coca i ne hy dr ochl or i de and s odi um bi carbonat e, a n d u s u a lly a p p e a ri n g in a lu m p yro c k lik e fo rm .” ). A ft err evi ew of the r ecor d, w e conc l ude thatE l l i s i s try i ng t o m ake a m ount ai n outof a mol ehi l l . A l t hough Sm i th i ndi cat ed s he di d notknow the di ffe r ence betw een c r ack a nd coca i ne bas e, s he t es t i fi ed ext ens i vel yt o her pur chas es and s al es of both cr ack a nd coca i ne on El l i s ’ s behal f, i ncl udi ng the pu rchase of m ore t han a po un d of crack. S he st at ed thatshe cou l d d i st i ng uis h cr ack f r om pow dercoca i ne, and thatcr ack w as coca i ne “r ocked up w i th baki ng pow der . ” Sm i t h s ai d t hats he know s w hatcr ack i s beca us e herex- boy fr i end sm ok ed crack, she had been around i t , and had seen i tcon sum ed. S he als o tes tifie d th a t sh e u n d e rsto o d f ro m h e r a tto rn e y s th a t co c a in e b a se is c ra c k . T h is is m o re th a n s u ffic ie n t e v id e n c e to in d ic a te th a t S m ith c o u ld id e n tif yc ra c k a s s u c h . T he t es t i m onyof anotherw i t nes s , B i l l yT al l ey , s uppor t s Sm i th’ s acc ount . T al l ey t es t i fi ed thathe had w i t nes s ed Sm i th pur chas e cr ack on El l i s ’ s behal f and w as fa m ili a r w ith c ra c k . A c c o rd in g ly , the re w a s m o re th a n su fficie n t ev id e n c e to s uppor tE l l i s ’ s convi ct i on forcons pi r acyt o di s tr i but e coc ai ne bas e as w el l as t he j ur y ’ s s peci al ver di ctt hatE l l i s cons pi r ed t o pos s es s w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e fi ve gr ams orm or e of c ocai ne bas e.- 5 - III E l l i s chal l enges t he i nt r oduct i on of t es t i m onyats ent enci ng as t o the q u a n tityo f

m e th a m p h e tam in e fo u n d in th e d ru g s s e ize d f ro m h im u p o n h is a rre st. H e cl ai m s t hatt he courtfai l ed t o conducti t s gat ekee pi ng r ol e underD aubertby e n su rin g th a t th e tes tim o n yin tro d u c e d w a s s u fficie n tlyre liab le to b e p re se n ted to a j ur y . Speci fi cal l y , he as s ert s t hatt he t es t i m onyaboutt he t ot al amount of m ethamphet ami ne found di d nots at i s fyt he r equi r ement s of D aubertbeca us e the g r i n d i n g a n d s a m p l i n g p r o c e d u r e s u s e d d i d n o tm e e ts c i e n t i fi c s t a n d a r d s . We agr ee w i t h E l l i s t hatt he courtfai l ed t o per form i t s gat ekee pi ng r ol e. B eca us e that e rr o r w a s h a rm le s s , h o w e v e r, w e a ffir m . A t trial, the id e n tific a tio n a n d q u a n tific a tio n o f th e d ru g s s e ize d f

ro m E lli s upon hi s arr es tw as a s i gni fi canti s s ue. J ohn G i l es and M ar tyW i l s on, anal y s t s for t he O kl ahoma B ur eau of I nves t i gat i on, t es t i fi ed t o the met hods us ed t o i dent i fy and det erm i ne the quant i t yof m ethamphet ami ne. B oth agent s t es t i fi ed t o the l ab pr ot ocol s eac h us ed t o i dent i fyt hes e s ubs t ance s . G i l es t es t i fi ed t o us i ng gas chr om at ogr aphym as s s pectr os copy( “G C M S”) t o m eas ur e the ac tual m e th a m p h e tam in e fo u n d in o n e sa m p le, w h ile W i l s on t es t i fi ed t o us i ng hi gh per form ance l i qui d chr om at ogr aphy( “H PL C ”) t o det erm i ne the quant i tyof ac tual m e th a m p h e ta m in e fo u n d in th e a lle g e d d ru g m a te ri a l s e iz e d f ro m E llis . B ecause th e se tes ts d e stro yth e sa m p les u se d , o n lya sm a ll p o rtio n o f th e d ru g s s e ize d is te s te d .- 6 -

O n e c o n c e rn w ith a n ysa m p lin g tes t is e n su rin g th a t th e sa m p le is r epr es ent at i ve of the w hol e. I f a s ampl e t es t ed has a hi gherorl ow er conce nt r at i on of the t ar getdrug, the t es tr es ul t s pr ovi de i nacc ur at e i nform at i on aboutt he t ot al amount of thatdrug and maym i s l ead the courti f us ed dur i ng s ent enci ng. G i l es and W i l s on bot h t es t i fi ed that , t o ens ur e the uni form i tyof the sa m p les tes ted , the yg ro u n d u p th e p a rtiallyc ry sta lli n e p o w d e rs s e ize d f ro m E lli s p rio r to p e rfo rm in g th e ir tes ts. B o th tec h n icia n s te stified th a t th e O k lah o m a S tate B ur eau of

I nves t i gat i on does nothave a pr ot ocol forconduct i ng s uch h o m o g e n iz a tio n p ro c e d u re s . T h e ya lso tes tifie d th a t m e th a m p h e tam in e is t ypi cal l ynotuni form i n i t s m i xtur e, and att i m es can “ gl ob[] t ogether . ” C l um pi ng i s par t i cul ar l ypr obl emat i c w hen the s ampl e i s m oi s t . W i l s on t es t i fi ed thatw hen he co nd ucts t he tes ton a sm al l sam ple, he g ri nd s the en t i re s am ple and t akes a s m a ll s e c tio n f

ro m th a t s a m p le . Forl ar gers ampl es , he gr i nds onl ya port i on of th e s a m p le . G iles tes tifie d to tw o d iffe re n t tec h n iq u e s fo r p re p a rin g sa m p les . H is p rac ti ce is t o g ri n d the e n ti re sa m p le be fo re rem o v ing a p o rt ion fo r t esti n g . In c o n tra st, G iles sta ted th a t th e m e th o d u se d b yo n e o f h is e m p lo y e e s, B ra d K n ig h t, is to re m o v e a p o rt io n o f th e s a m p le a n d g ri n d o n ly th a t p o rt io n p ri o r t o te s tin g . K ni ght ’ s pr ocedur e gene r at ed a r es ul tt hatvar i ed fr om G i l es ’ s r es ul tbym or e than ten p e rc e n t. B o th G iles a n d W ilso n tes tifie d th a t th e yd id n o t k n o w o f a n ytes ts ors ci ent i fi c pape r s demonstr at i ng the uni form i tyof m ethamphet ami ne af t er gr i ndi ng. W i l s on t es t i fi ed thathi s m ethod w as “bas ed on the gene r al pr i nci pl es- 7 -

us ed i n s ci ence . I f y ou ar e goi ng t o s ampl e s om ethi ng and tryt o det erm i ne the i dent i t yorhow m uch i s i n t her e, good s ci ence i s t o geta r epr es ent at i ve s ampl e of it.” E l l i s m oved t o excl ude W i l s on’ s t es t i m onyon the gr ounds t hati tdi d not compl yw i t h D aubert . E l l i s cl ai m s t hatW i l s on pr es ent ed no evi dence d e m o n stra tin g th e re liab ili tyo f th e tec h n iq u e s u se d to e x tra p o late th e q u a n tity fi ndi ngs fr om t he s m al l por t i ons t es t ed t o the ent i r e drug s ampl e. T he di s tr i ct c o u rt d e n ied th e m o tio n , fin d in g th a t “th e tes ts th a t w e re d o n e a re su fficie n tly r el i abl e under. . . 702, [and] 703, . . . and undert he D aubertcas e I t hi nk thatany

. . . p o tential o r pe rce ived p rob lem s w ith that ca n b e so m ethin g fo r th e juryto so rt o u t an d is a p ro p e r su bjec t o f a rg u m e n t, bu t I d o n ’t th in k it rise s to th e lev e l th a t I need t o excl ude i tunderD aubert . ” E ll is r en ew ed h is m o ti o n af ter G il es’s tes tim o n ya n d a t th e c lo se o f trial. T he courtagai n deni ed the mot i on, s t at i ng t hat “i tdoes n’ tt ake a s ci ent i s tt o know t hatw hen y ou m ake a pi t cherof K ool - A i d y ou do n’tj ustpo ur the p ackag e i n o n top of t he w at er. I m ean, y ou st i r i tup so t her e’ s nothots pot s of che r r y . ” U n d e r F e d . R . E v id . 7 0 2 , the S u p re m e C o u rt h a s re q u ire d d istric t co u rts to p e r fo r m a gat ekee pi ng r ol e t o “ens ur e thatanyand al l s ci ent i fi c t es t i m onyor e v id e n c e a d m itte d is n o t o n ly re le v a n t, b u t r e lia b le .” D a u b e rt , 5 0 9 U .S . a t 5 8 9 . T he r el i abi l i t yof expe r tt es t i m onytur ns on i t s s t atus as s ci ent i fi c know l edge. I d. at590. T he di s t r i ctcour tm aydet erm i ne thatexpertt es t i m onyi s r el i abl e by- 8 -

i nqui r i ng i nt o t he qual i fi cat i ons and bac kgr ound of the expe r tand as ki ng i f “the r eas oni ng orm ethodol ogyunder l y i ng the t es t i m onyi s s ci ent i fi cal l yval i d. ” B i t l er v. A . O . Sm i t h C orp. , 400 F. 3d 1227, 1233 ( 10th C i r . 2004) ( quot i ng D aubert , 509 U . S. at592- 93) . T he s ci ent i fi c val i di tyof a t es tm aybe es t abl i s hed by cons i der i ng, among ot herfac t or s : “( 1) w hethera theoryhas been orcan be t es t ed, ( 2) w hethert he theoryort echni que has been s ubj ectt o peerr evi ew and p u b lica tio n , (3 ) w h e th e r th e re a re k n o w n o r p o ten tial ra tes o f e rro r w ith re g a rd to s peci fi c t echni ques , and ( 4) w hetherthe theoryorappr oach ha s ‘ gener al a c c e p ta n c e .’” D a u b e rt , 5 0 9 U .S . a t 5 9 3 -9 4 . W e r evi ew de novo w hetherthe di s tr i ctcourthas per form ed i t s cr i t i cal gat ekee pi ng r ol e. B i t l er , 400 F. 3d at1232. I f the courthas per form ed thi s r ol e, w e r evi ew forabus e of di s cr et i on the manneri n w hi ch a di s tr i ctcourtm akes the d e c isio n to a d m it o r e x c lu d e e x p e rt tes tim o n y . Id . A d istric t co u rt h a s la titu d e in det erm i ni ng t he pr ocedur es us ed t o per form i t s gat ekee pi ng funct i on. U ni t ed St at es v. C har l ey , 189 F. 3d 1251, 1266 ( 10th C i r . 1999) . Fori ns t ance , i tm aydo s o w i t houthol di ng a D auberthear i ng. See U ni t ed St at es v. C al l , 129 F. 3d 1402, 1 4 0 5 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 7 ). A s lo n g a s a d istric t co u rt h a s s u fficie n t ev id e n c e to a ss e ss th a t th e e x p e rt tes tim o n y“ re sts o n a re liab le fo u n d a tio n a n d is re lev a n t to t he t as k athand” i tm ays at i s fyt he gat ekee pi ng funct i on byrul i ng on an obj ect i on att r i al . G oebel v. D enver& R i o G r ande W es t ern R . R . C o. , 215 F. 3d 1083, 1087 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). T h e c o u rt m u st, h o w e v e r, “a d e q u a telyd e m o n stra te b ysp e c ific- 9 -

fi ndi ngs on t he r ecor d t hati thas per form ed i t s dutyas gat ekee per . ” D odge v. C ot t erC orp. , 328 F. 3d 1212, 1223 ( 10th C i r . 2003) . “W i thouts peci fi c fi ndi ngs ordi s cus s i on on t he r ecor d, i ti s i m pos s i bl e on appe al t o det erm i ne w hetherthe d istric t co u rt c a re f

u llya n d m e ticu lo u slyre v iew e d th e p ro ffe re d sc ien tific evi dence ors i m pl ym ade a n off- the- cuff deci s i on t o admi tthe expe r tt es t i m ony . ” I d. ( quot at i ons om i t t ed) . “I n t he abs ence of s uch fi ndi ngs , w e mustconcl ude that t he courtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n admi t t i ng s uch t es t i m ony . ” I d. A di s t r i ctcour tm us tconducta tw o- parti nqui ryt o ful fi l l i t s gat ekee pi ng ro le. F irst, th e c o u rt a sk s w h e th e r th e p ro ffe re d tes tim o n yh a s “ a re liab le b a sis in t he know l edge a nd exper i ence ” of the r el evantdi s ci pl i ne. B i t l er , 400 F. 3d at 1232- 33. T o m ake s uch a de t erm i nat i on, a courts houl d i nqui r e i nt o the qual i fi cat i ons and bac kgr ound of the expe r tand as k i f “the r eas oni ng or m ethodol ogyunder l y i ng t he t es t i m onyi s s ci ent i fi cal l yval i d. ” I d. ( quot i ng D a u b e rt , 5 0 9 U .S . a t 5 9 2 -9 3 ). “ [ A ]n ys te p th a t r e n d e rs th e a n a lysis u n re lia b le . . . r ender s t he expe r t ’ s t es t i m onyi nadmi s s i bl e. ” M i t chel l v. G enec orp. , I nc. , 165 F. 3d 778, 782 ( 10t h C i r . 1999) . Second, the courtm us tdet erm i ne i f the t es t i m onyi s “r el evantt o t he t as k athand. ” B i t l er , 400 F. 3d at1234 ( quot i ng D au b ert, 5 0 9 U . S . at 59 7 ).A l t hough t he r el evanc e of the expe r tt es t i m onyw as notati s s ue – the 2 amount of m ethamphet ami ne s ei zed f r om E l l i s i s cl ear l yr el evantt o the cha r ge of pos s es s i on w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e more t han fi ve gr ams of met hamphet ami ne – th e c o u rt w a s o b lig a te d , u n d e r G o e b e l, to m a k e a s p e c ific fin d in g a s to re le v a n c e . See G oebel , 215 F. 3d at1087. - 10 - T he di s t r i ctcour tm ade no s peci fi c fi ndi ngs thatthe t es t i m onybyG i l es and W i l s on w as bas ed on a r el i abl e foundat i on. T he courtdi d notaddr es s w hether 2 t he gr i ndi ng and s ampl i ng t echni ques us ed w er e gene r al l yacc ept ed byt he for ens i c comm uni t y . E l l i s ’ s at t or neyes t abl i s hed thatt he t echni que had notbeen tes ted fo r u n ifo rm ity , tha t th e re h a d n o t b e e n p e e r re v iew o r p u b lica tio n o n th is m a tter, a n d th a t th e re w a s a t lea st a p o ss ib ili tyo f e rro r, g iv e n th e d iffe rin g re su lts on t he t es t s conduct ed byK ni ghtand thos e conduc t ed byG i l es . A ccor di ngl y , t he cour tfai l ed t o per form t he fi r s tt as k of the gat ekee pi ng r ol e – det erm i ni ng w h e th e r t h e p ro ffe re d te s tim o n yw a s re lia b le a n d h a d a s c ie n tific b a s is . In p e rfo rm in g th e g a tek e e p e r f u n c tio n , the d istric t co u rt’s r o le is n o t to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e ra m a t t e rt e s t i fi e d t o b y a n e x p e r tc o u l d b e i n t e rp r e t e d b y a j ur y , butr athert o as s es s t he r el i abi l i tyof the pr i nci pl es and met hods under l y i ng t he ex pert ’s op i nion t o d et erm i ne if i tshou l d b e present ed to a j uryi n the fi rs t instan ce . B it ler, 4 3 0 F . 3 d at 12 3 2 -33 . In o ther w o rds, th e d istri ct co u rt ’s effo rt to d ra w a n a n a lo g yo f th e d ryg rin d in g p ro c e ss u se d to h o m o g e n ize a sa m p le to m a k in g K o o l- A id is n o t a p t. T he governm ents ugges t s thatt he mat t erati s s ue befor e us – w hethert he s ub- s ampl e t es t ed i s r epr es ent at i ve of the ent i r e port i on of drugs s ei zed – i s notT he g ov ernm ent al so argues t hat D aub ertdo es not applyt o the agen t s’ 3 s ampl i ng m ethod beca us e El l i s ’ s att ack goe s onl yt o the met hod of ac qui s i t i on of th e e v id e n c e , n o t th e a n a ly sis o f th e e v id e n c e . W e d isa g re e . A s w e sta ted in U ni t ed St at es v. L auder , 409 F. 3d 1254, 1264 ( 10th C i r . 2005) , a met hodol ogy u se d to a n a ly z e e v id e n c e – w h e th e r to d e ter m in e q u a n tityo r q u a lity– c lea rlyfa lls w ith in th e D a u b e rt f

ra m e w o rk . - 11 - s ubj ectt o t he rul es of D aubertbeca us e the di s tr i ctcour tt ook not i ce of “a centur i es ol d pr i nci pl e of uni form i ty , i . e. w hen a s ubs t ance i s m i xed, i tbecomes m o re u n ifo rm .” 3 D aubertdi d s ugges tt hata courtcoul d t ake j udi ci al not i ce of “theor i es t hat a re so firm lye sta b lish e d a s to h a v e a ttain e d th e sta tu s o f sc ien tific law .” D a u b e rt, 50 9 U . S . at59 2 n . 11 (gi ving as an ex am ple the law s of t herm od ynam i cs) ; see al so F e d . R . E v id . 2 0 1 (b ) (p e rm itt in g c o u rts to tak e ju d icia l n o tice o f fa c ts b yre so rt to so u rc e s “ w h o se a c c u ra c yc a n n o t re a so n a b lyb e q u e stio n e d ” ). H o w e v e r, m u lti p le di s cr et e pr obes of a drys ubs t ance i n or dert o obt ai n a r epr es ent at i ve s ampl e i s not s o w el l know n. N ei t hert he governm entnort he courtpoi nt ed t o anys our ce “w hos e ac cur acycannotr eas onabl ybe ques t i oned” de m ons tr at i ng that m ethamphet ami ne bec om es s o uni form l ydi s tr i but ed w hen gr ound up that di ffe r ents ampl es fr om t he s ame popul at i on w i l l pr ovi de s uffi ci ent l ys i m i l ar resu lt s. If a n ything , E ll is’ s att o rne y ’s qu esti o n s, an d G il es’s a n d W il so n ’s answ ers , qu i t e reas on ablycal l i nto dou bt the u nifor m i tyof the sam ples , demonstr at i ng a var i at i on of t en per centbetw een one s ampl e and the next , and the la c k o f a p ro to c o l fo r p re p a ri n g a n d s e le c tin g s a m p le s f ro m s e iz e d d ru g s .- 12 -

D aubert ’ s gat ekee pi ng r equi r ementthus appl i es t o G i l es ’ s and W i l s on’ s t es t i m ony a b o u t th e q u a n tityo f

m e th a m p h e tam in e , an d th e g o v e rn m e n t m u st e sta b lish , at a m i ni m um , t hatt he s ampl i ng t echni que us ed i s r eas onabl yr el i abl e. See U ni t ed St at es v. D ent , 149 F. 3d 180, 190- 91 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ( hol di ng thats t at i s t i cal evi dence s uppor t i ng s ampl i ng t echni que i s notr equi r ed; i ns t ead, the governm ent m ayes t abl i s h r el i abi l i t yof drug quant i tym eas ur ement s bas ed on extr apol at i on fr om a t es ts ampl e bydemonstr at i ng an ade quat e bas i s i n fac tforextr apol at i on and thatt he quant i t yw as det erm i ned w i th an ac cept ed s t andar d of r el i abi l i ty ) ; s ee al s o U ni t ed St at es v. Scal i a, 993 F. 2d 984, 989 ( 1s tC i r . 1993) ( hol di ng that s t at i s t i cal evi dence s uppor t i ng t he s ampl i ng t echni ques i s notnece s s ary ; i ns t ead, r eas onabl e r el i ance m aybe found w her e a pr eponder ance of evi dence es t abl i s hes t hat( 1) a pr oper“r andom” se l ect i on pr ocedur e w as empl oy ed, ( 2) the che m i cal t es t i ng m ethod conform ed w i t h acc ept ed met hodol ogy , ( 3) the t es t ed and unt es t ed s ampl es w er e s uffi ci ent l ys i m i l ari n phy s i cal appea r ance , and ( 4) the t es t ed and u n te s te d s a m p le s w e re c o n te m p o ra n e o u s ly se iz e d a t th e s e a rc h s c e n e ). W e n o w turn to E ll is’ s sp ec ifi c c h all en g e to th e c o u rt ’s reli an ce o n G il es’s and W i l s on’ s t es t i m ony . I ti s notcl earw hetherhe cha l l enges the under l y i ng convi ct i on forpos s es s i on w i t h i nt entt o di s tr i but e more than fi ve gr ams of m ethamphet ami ne ort he det erm i nat i on of drug quant i tyforpurpos es of s ent enci ng. A s s um i ng t hathe di d chal l enge the under l y i ng convi ct i on, on r evi ew o f th e re c o rd w e c o n c lu d e th a t alth o u g h th e d istric t co u rt fa iled to p e rfo rm itsE l l i s does notr ai s e anyi s s ue as t o the val i di tyof the t es t i ng byG i l es or 4 W i l s o n t o d e t e r mi n e t h a tEl l i s p o s s e s s e d wi th i n t e n tt o d i s tr i b u t e t h e 7 1 . 1 g r a ms of a mi xtur e of met hamphet ami ne. - 13 - g atek ee p ing role u n d er D au b ert, an yco n side rati o n o f G il es’s a n d W il so n ’s t es t i m onyw as harm l es s err or . A governm entagentt es t i fi ed thatan i nform ant m ade mul t i pl e pur chas es of m or e than 3. 6 gr ams of met hamphet ami ne, the age nt hi m s el f m ade one pur chas e of more than 3. 6 gr ams of met hamphet ami ne fr om E l l i s , and Sm i t h t es t i fi ed t o buy i ng fr om and s el l i ng on behal f of El l i s m or e than fi ve gr ams of met hamphet ami ne. T hus , as t o E l l i s ’ s convi ct i on, anyerr orfr om t he i nt r oduct i on of G i l es ’ s and W i l s on’ s t es t i m onyi s harm l es s . See G oebel , 215 F. 3d at1089 ( “Err oneous admi s s i on of evi dence i s harm l es s onl yi f other compet entevi dence i s ‘ s uffi ci ent l ys tr ong t o perm i tt he conc l us i on thatt he im p ro p e r e v id e n c e h a d n o e ffe c t o n th e d e c is io n .’” ). A s t o the use of G i l es’ s and W i l son’s t est i m on yatsent encing, w e al so concl ude thati tw as harm l es s err or . U nques t i onabl y , t he di s tr i ctcourtr el i ed on t he evi dence pr es ent ed att r i al i n deci di ng t o acc eptt he s ent enci ng re c o m m e n d a tio n s in th e p re -s e n te n c e re p o rt (“ P S R ” ). T he PSR i ndi cat ed that E l l i s pos s es s ed w i t h i nt entt o di s tr i but e 71. 1 gr ams of a mi xtur e of m e th a m p h e tam in e (1 4 2 .2 k ilo g ra m s o f m a riju a n a e q u iv a len t), o r a p p ro x im a tely 4 24. 9 gr ams of ac tual m ethamphet ami ne ( 497. 5 ki l ogr ams of mar ij uana e q u i v a l e n t ) . I n r e v i e wi n g t h e t o t a l a mo u n to f d ru g s i d e n t i fi e d i n t h e P S R, we co n clud e this w as e q u ivalen t t o 2 0 , 4 2 0 . 8 5 k il o g ram s o f m arij u an a. H ad G il es’sU nderU . S. S. G . § 2D 1. 1, vi ol at i ons of §§ 846 and 841( a) ( 1) i nvol vi ng 5 b e tw e e n 1 0 ,0 0 0 a n d 3 0 ,0 0 0 k ilo g ra m s o f m a riju a n a e q u iv a len t ar e se n ten c e d a t a bas e offens e l evel of 36. - 14 - a n d W ilso n ’s te stim o n yb e e n e x c lu d e d , the c o u rt w o u ld h a v e h a d to c o n sid e r o n ly t he amountof m i xed, r athert han ac tual , m ethamphet ami ne w hen det erm i ni ng E l l i s ’ s s ent ence . U ndert hi s cal cul us , E l l i s ’ s m ar ij uana e qui val entw oul d be r educe d by355 ki l ogr ams, fora mar ij uana e qui val entt ot al of 20, 065. 85 kil og ram s. E i t her am ou nt places E l l i s at a base offense l evel of thirty -s i x. A s a 5 r es ul t , t he exc l us i on of G i l es ’ s and W i l s on’ s t es t i m onyw oul d nothave a ffe ct ed E l l i s ’ s bas e offens e l evel and w e AF F I RM hi s s ent ence . IV B ec au se w e c o n clud e tha t th ere is sufficien t evid en ce to su p p o rtE ll is’ s convi ct i on forcons pi r acyt o pos s es s w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e coc ai ne, coca i ne bas e, and met hamphet ami ne, w e AF F I RM h is c o n v ic tio n o n C o u n t O n e . A d d it ion all y , w e c o n clud e tha t th e d istri ct co u rt ’s fa il u re to p erfo rm h is D au b ert gat ekee pi ng funct i on w as harm l es s , and ther efor e AF F I RM hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence forpos s es s i on w i t h i nt entt o di s tr i but e more t han fi ve gr ams of m e th a m p h e ta m in e (C o u n t T w o ).

ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT C arlos F . L u ce ro C i r cui tJ udge