1

The Honorable Donald E. O'Brien, United States District Judge for the

Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 02-1129

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff/Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Northern

* District of Iowa.

Russell Dean Eide, *

*

Defendant/Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 11, 2002

Filed: July 19, 2002 

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, HEANEY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

MURPHY, Circuit Judge.

Russell Eide was found guilty by a jury of attempting to manufacture 5 grams

or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846, and

maintaining a place for methamphetamine manufacturing, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 856(a)(1). The district court1

 sentenced him to 120 months. We affirm.
-2-

On October 20, 2000, Webster City police officers executed a search warrant

for Russell Eide's residence based on information from his mother and half sister that

he was involved in the manufacture and use of methamphetamine. When officers

arrived at Eide's residence they saw materials consistent with the manufacture of

methamphetamine, primarily in the basement and an adjacent doghouse. These

materials included rags smelling of anhydrous ammonia, a blanket reeking of ether,

a tupperware container with a white powdery substance which proved to be

pseudoephedrine (a precursor to methamphetamine), a large apple juice jar with a

sludge-like substance subsequently found to contain trace amounts of

methamphetamine, a five gallon bucket of ether, and large green tanks which could

be used to store anhydrous ammonia. Due to the strong odors of ether and anhydrous

ammonia, the officers contacted the Division of Narcotics Enforcement (DNE)

laboratory team to conduct a more secure investigation and remove hazardous

materials. 

The DNE team found various items throughout Eide's residence consistent with

the manufacture of methamphetamine. In addition to the items found during the

initial search, the team seized two air tanks, a container of acetone, a thermos cooler,

and two tops of plastic soda bottles for use as funnels. In Eide's doghouse, the team

discovered several packages of lithium camera batteries, several cans of engine

starting fluid, a Pyrex dish, and a container of muriatic acid. In Eide's garage were

a liquid propane tank and cans of starting fluid with puncture marks. Under his bed

officers found various paraphernalia, including a locked Sentry lockbox containing

a balance scale, a postal scale, two glass tubes, white tablets in a plastic bag, a bag

containing six glass tubes, a marijuana pipe, and a black leather bag with clear plastic

baggies in it.

During the course of the search, officers also found a gas mask and a blender

with white powder residue. They also found a plastic container they had seen in

Eide's vehicle three days earlier during a traffic stop. At the time of the stop, officers
-3-

had suspected that Eide was involved in the manufacture of methamphetamine

because they saw in his vehicle items commonly used in the theft of anhydrous

ammonia – a plastic container, a cut section of bicycle inner tube, and a roll of duct

tape.

Eide's former wife testified at trial that she had begun moving out of the house

during the month prior to the search because of his involvement in the manufacture

of methamphetamine. She reported smelling chemical and ether-like odors from the

basement. She also saw a can of muriatic acid, a blender with white powder in it, and

coffee filters. The filters were seen in the basement where Eide allegedly

manufactured the methamphetamine. Eide's half sister testified that on the day before

police searched Eide's residence she had gone into the basement and seen an apple

juice jar with yellow liquid in it, a couple of bags of white powder, coffee filters, and

Vicks inhalers. She also reported seeing wadded aluminum foil in other parts of the

house.

Chemist Patricia Krahn of the Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI)

testified at trial as the government's drug analysis expert. Krahn testified that she had

received a bachelor of science degree in chemistry from the University of Iowa and

that she is a member of the Midwestern Association of Forensic Scientists and the

Clandestine Laboratory Investigating Chemists. She testified that she had been with

the DCI Drug Analysis section for almost six years and had been focusing on

clandestine laboratories for close to two and a half years. During that period she had

analyzed over 500 clandestine laboratories. She reported that her on the job training

at the criminalistics laboratory included both general drug analysis and the analysis

of clandestine methamphetamine laboratories and that she had received additional

training in both areas through the Drug Enforcement Agency, the FBI academy, and

the Midwestern Association of Forensic Scientists. She testified that she had

prepared methamphetamine herself by using a typical recipe found in Iowa and that

she helped teach law enforcement officers about clandestine methamphetamine
2

The Iowa DCI study had found a correlation between CMP levels and

methamphetamine yields from recipes employed by clandestine labs in the Iowa area.

It found that when CMP levels are low (8 percent or less), yields varied between 35

and 63 percent. When CMP levels are high (40 to 67 percent), yields ranged between

15 and 29 percent.

-4-

laboratories. Her teaching covers items found in such labs, the methods used in them,

and techniques for sampling materials taken from them.

In her official report on Eide's laboratory, Krahn determined that the substances

found in Eide's residence – punctured engine starting fluid cans, muriatic acid,

lithium batteries, and pseudoephedrine precursor – were consistent with an intention

to manufacture methamphetamine using the lithium ammonia reduction method. She

also reported that it would have been necessary to add anhydrous ammonia to create

the reaction needed to produce methamphetamine.

Krahn calculated that the amount of chemicals seized from Eide's residence

would have yielded 10.1 to 12.6 grams actual (pure) methamphetamine. She based

this yield on her study of a number of specific factors, including substances seized

from Eide's property, the report of the criminalist that attended the scene, agent notes,

photographs taken during the execution of the search warrant, and an Iowa DCI

study. Krahn testified that the white powder seized from Eide's doghouse weighed

79 grams and contained 35 percent pseudoephedrine, a precursor of

methamphetamine. The actual amount of pseudoephedrine was 27.6 grams. Krahn

calculated that the highest possible yield of actual methamphetamine from this

precursor was 25.39 grams (92 percent of 27.6 grams of pseudoephedrine). She then

calculated the likely yield from Eide's manufacturing processes based on the amount

of by-product (CMP) left in the sludge at the bottom of the apple juice jar found in

Eide's basement. Krahn tested samples from that and determined that the sludge-like

liquid was consistent with engine starting fluid and contained pseudoephedrine, a

small amount of methamphetamine, and very little CMP, indicating that Eide had

achieved a "fairly good conversion" of precursor to methamphetamine.2

 This low
-5-

amount of CMP led Krahn to conclude that Eide would have attained a 40 to 50

percent yield from manufacturing methamphetamine from the 25.39 grams of

pseudoephedrine precursor. This yield would have resulted in producing 10.1 to 12.6

grams of actual methamphetamine.

Eide was found guilty by a jury of attempting to manufacture 5 grams or more

of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846, and maintaining

a place for methamphetamine manufacturing, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1).

The district court sentenced him to 120 months on each count, to be served

concurrently.

Eide argues that the evidence was insufficient to show that he attempted to

manufacture 5 grams or more of methamphetamine and that he should be resentenced

on the included offense of simple attempted manufacturing. Eide contends that the

estimate of 10.1 to 12.6 grams actual methamphetamine did not amount to proof

beyond a reasonable doubt that he had attempted to manufacture 5 grams or more and

that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for judgment of acquittal. Eide

argues that Krahn failed to account for all the variables that might have affected the

yield of methamphetamine from the precursor, such as temperature, size and shape

of vessels, amount of anhydrous ammonia, and his cooking skill. Eide also claims

that the Iowa DCI study Krahn used in calculating her 40 to 50 percent yield estimate

is not sufficiently reliable to satisfy a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The government asserts that the evidence was sufficient for a jury to find

beyond a reasonable doubt that Eide had attempted to manufacture 5 or more grams

of actual methamphetamine. It argues that Krahn's expert testimony was based on

evidence from Eide's place of operation and that her yield estimates were informed

by the actual amount of CMP found at Eide's residence, not just the averages in the

Iowa DCI study, and that Eide has shown nothing to refute either Eide's calculations

or the conclusions in the Iowa DCI study. The government also notes that the Iowa
-6-

DCI study was introduced into evidence by Eide's own counsel and was used against

Krahn on cross examination.

We review a defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence in the

light most favorable to the verdict, allowing the government all reasonable inferences

that may be drawn from the evidence. United States v. Butler, 238 F.3d 1001, 1003

(8th Cir. 2001). We may reverse on insufficiency of the evidence "only if no

reasonable jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that [Eide] is guilty of the

offense charged." United States v. Anderson, 78 F.3d 420, 422 (8th Cir. 1996). In

deciding a motion for judgment of acquittal, we neither weigh the evidence nor assess

the credibility of witnesses. United States v. Pardue, 983 F.2d 843, 847 (8th Cir.

1993). Any evidentiary conflicts are resolved in favor of the verdict. United States

v. Buford, 108 F.3d 151, 152 (8th Cir. 1997).

Estimating the amount a clandestine lab is capable of manufacturing may be

determined from the quantity of the precursor chemicals seized together with expert

testimony about their conversion to methamphetamine. United States v. Hunt, 171

F.3d 1192, 1195-96 (8th Cir. 1999). Quantity yield figures should not be calculated

without regard for the particular capabilities of a defendant and the drug

manufacturing site. See United States v. Anderson, 236 F.3d 427, 430 (8th Cir.) (per

curiam), cert.denied, 122 S. Ct. 356 (2001) (evidence must be based not on theoretical

yield but on what the particular defendant could produce); United States v. Cole, 125

F.3d 654, 655 (8th Cir. 1997) (relevant inquiry is on what the defendant, not "an

average cook," is capable of yielding). See also United States v. Eschman, 227 F.3d

886, 890-91 (7th Cir. 2000) (estimates of drug production must be based on

particularized facts related to the capabilities of an individual defendant's drug

laboratory); United States v. Hamilton, 81 F.3d 652, 654-55 (6th Cir. 1996) (same);

United States v. Mahaffey, 53 F.3d 128, 132-33 (6th Cir. 1995) (same). 

The particularized nature of Krahn's testimony, combined with additional

evidence suggesting that Eide was experienced in the manufacture of
3

We note parenthetically that even if the jury had found that Eide's lab was

capable of producing only a 20 percent yield, such a finding would have been

sufficient to reach the 5 gram threshold.

-7-

methamphetamine, were sufficient for a jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that

Eide was a good cook capable of producing a 40 to 50 percent yield.3

 Krahn had

established herself as an expert in the analysis of clandestine methamphetamine

laboratories in Iowa, had received substantial training on the subject, and had

analyzed over 500 laboratories. Krahn also made it clear that her conclusions were

drawn from the particular methamphetamine manufacturing processes used in Eide's

basement. The jury heard Krahn testify that the specific CMP levels found in Eide's

lab indicated that his lithium ammonia reduction process was capable of producing

a 40 to 50 percent yield from the 25.39 grams of precursor. The DCI study had found

that similarly low CMP levels correlated to high yields of methamphetamine when

recipes from clandestine labs in the Iowa area were used to manufacture

methamphetamine by the lithium ammonia reduction method.

The jury also heard testimony from police, DNE officers, and Eide's family

members indicating that he was heavily involved in the manufacture of

methamphetamine. Police and DNE officers testified to the large amount of evidence

gathered at Eide's residence that was consistent with the production of

methamphetamine manufacturing, including cans of engine starting fluid, muriatic

acid, liquid propane tanks, lithium camera batteries, crushed pseudoephedrine, rags

smelling of anhydrous ammonia, scales, plastic baggies, and the sludge-like substance

containing trace amounts of methamphetamine. The jury heard Eide's half sister

testify about suspicious objects she had seen in his lab, including a couple of bags of

white powder, coffee filters and the apple juice jar, and Eide's former wife testified

that she had smelled chemicals coming from the basement and had seen coffee filters

and a blender with white powder.
-8-

The combined effect of Krahn's particularized testimony and the strong and

detailed circumstantial evidence linking Eide to the manufacture of methamphetamine

were enough for the jury to conclude that Krahn's calculations were an accurate

estimate of Eide's manufacturing capabilities. We conclude that there was sufficient

evidence to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Eide had attempted to manufacture

5 or more grams of methamphetamine.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.