Counts 14 and 15 wer e fo r fo rf ei ture , and ar e not

at i ss ue i n this a

pp ea l. 1 NOT RE CO M M E NDE D F OR P UB L I CA T I ON Fi l e N ame: 07a0404n. 06 Fi l ed: J une 18, 2007 N o. 06- 5625 UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S IX 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. DA RRELL G LEN B UR KE, D e f e n d a n t-A p p e llan t. O n A ppeal fr om t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he W es t ern D i s t r i ctof K entucky at O w en sb o ro / B efore: G U Y , B A T C H E L D E R , an d G IL M A N , C i rcu i t Jud ges. R A L P H B . G U Y , JR . , C i rcui t Judge. D e f e n d a n t D a rre ll G len n B u rk e a p p e a ls h is
se n ten c e , arg u in g th a t th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in d e ter m in in g th e q u a n tityo f d ru g s a ttribu tab le t o hi m forpurpos es of ca l cul at i ng t he appl i cabl e s ent enci ng gui del i ne ran g e. D efe ndant pl eade d gui l t yt o al l 13 s ubs t anti v e co u n t s char ged i n t he Thi r d Super cedi ng I ndi ct m ent
w i t ho ut a pl ea agreem ent. T he d i stri ctcou rtsent enced defe nd ant t o a tot al of 1 51 m on t hs’ 1 i m pr i s onm ent t o be fol l ow ed by a m andat or y cons ecut i ve 60- m ont h s ent ence on one of the firearm o ff

en ses, fo r a total t erm o f 2 1 1 m o n ths’ im p ri so n m en t. A fter rev iew o f th e re co rd
a n d t h e a r g u me n t s p r e s e n t e d o n a p p e a l , we a f f i r m. I.No. 06-5625 2

D ef en d an t cam e to the att en ti o n o f the p o li ce o n A u g u st 8, 20 0 3 , af ter th e W al-M art i n Hen d e r s o n , Ken tu c k y , r e p o r t e d t h a t h e a n d a woma n ma d e s u s p i c i o u s p u r c h a s e s of p se u d o e p h e d rin e tab lets a n d lith iu m b a tterie s. A tra f f ic sto p m a d e a sh o rt tim e late r le d to
a s ear ch of de fenda nt ’ s t ruck and t he di s coveryof, among ot hert hi ngs , ei ghtempt ySudafed boxes , one box cont ai ni ng 118 ps eudoephe dr i ne t abl et s r emoved fr om t hei rbl i s t erpacks , 23 lith iu m b a tterie s, a sm a ll am o u n t o f m a riju a n a , an d 1 .5 1 g ra m s o f m e th a m p h e tam in e . T h is
s t op w oul d become t he bas i s fort he cha r ges i n count s 1 t hr ough 4. O n N ovember 29, 2003, defe ndantw as a pas s enger i n a car s t opped for s peedi ng. T he offi cern o ti ced a s tr ong odorof ether , w hi ch i s as s oci at ed w i t h t he manufactur e of
m ethamphet ami ne, and a Sudafe d box on t he fl oor . A cons ens ual s ear ch r es ul t ed i n t he
se izu re o f

, am o n g o th e r th in g s, a sm a ll am o u n t o f m a riju a n a a n d w h a t th e lab o ra to ryw o u ld det er m i ne t o be 1. 351 gr ams of met hamphet ami ne. T hi s s t op w oul d for m t he bas i s fort he char ges i n count s 5 and 6. I n ear l yFebruary2004, a conf i dent i al i nfor m ant( C I ) had s ever al m oni t or ed
conver s at i ons w i t h t he def endantconce r ni ng t h e m anufa ctur e of met hamphet ami ne, di s cus s i ng w h ere t o s t eal anhy dr ous amm oni a forus e i n t he manufactur e of
m ethamphet ami ne, and agr eei ng that defe ndantw oul d t eac h hi s m ethod for“cooki ng”
m ethamphet ami ne. A s t he g o v e rn me n tn ot ed dur i ng t he s ent enci ng hear i ng, defe ndants t at ed dur i ng one of thes e ca l l s t hathi s m ethod r equi r ed about140 0 p seu d oephedr i ne pi l l s and
w ou l d y i e l d a n o u n c e o r t wo o f me t h a mph e t a mi n e . Def e n d a n t a d d e d t h a the had be en
m a n u f a c tu rin g m e th a m p h e tam in e f o r “ tw e n tyso m e y e a rs” w ith o u t g e tti n g c a u g h t.No. 06-5625 3

O n M ar ch 21, 2004, pol i ce w entt o defe nd an t’ s r es i dence i n r es pons e t o an anonym ous r epor tof an a ct i ve met ham phet ami ne l abor at or y . O ffi cer s encount er ed defe ndant , not i ced a s t r ong odor o f ether , and found mat er i al s , chemi cal s , and equi pm ent
as s oci at ed w i t h t he manufactur e of met hamphet ami ne. D efe ndant ’ s 11- y ear - ol d daught er
w as al s o p rese n t. T he evi dence i ncl uded 400 col d t abl et s cont ai ni ng ps eudoephe dr i ne, tu b in g , ca n s o f sta rte r f

lu id , la rg e b o ttl e s o f d ra in c lea n e r, d e n a tu re d a lco h o l, a n d ro c k sa lt. T he off i cer s al s o found a r es pi r at or , r adi o s canne r s , di gi t al s cal es , and baggi es of m ar i j uana. Pol i ce s ei zed a gl as s j ar cont ai ni ng “pi l l s oak” t hat t es t ed pos i t i ve foranhy dr ous amm oni a,
a f ire e x tin g u ish e r c o n tain in g a n h y d ro u s a m m o n ia, b a ttery strip p in g s, p u n c tu re d sta rte r f lu id
cans , coff

ee f i l t ers w it h w hi t e r es i due, and 16 hy dr ogen chl or i de ( H C L ) gener at or s m ade fr om pl as t i c s oda bot t l es . A l s o, t w o l oaded fi r earm s , a . 22 cal i berr evol verand a . 25 cal i ber
s emi
- aut om at i c pi s t ol , w er e concea l ed i n a chai r . L abor at or y anal y s i s of a sol i d s ubs t ance
w ei ghi ng 45. 54 gr ams and c ont ai ni ng 7. 75 gr ams of ps eudoephe dr i ne/ ephedr i ne conc l uded t hat , i f cooked, i t w oul d pr oduce 5. 03 gr ams of m ethamphet ami ne at a 65% y i el d r at e. T he evi dence obt ai ned on M ar ch 21, 2004, w oul d be t he bas i s fort he cha r ges i n count s 7 t hr ough 13. T her e w er e pl ea di s cus s i ons undera w r i t t en pr offe r l et t er , butno pl ea a gr eementw as
r eac hed. I ns t ead, defe ndantpl eade d gui l t yw i t houtan agr eement to t w o count s eac h of:
m anufa ctur i ng m ethamphet ami ne (c ount s 1, 5) ; pos s es s i on of m ethamphet ami ne ( count s 2, 6 ); p o sses sion o f a “li st 1 c h em ical” w ith rea so n to b eli ev e itw o u ld b e u sed to m an u fa cture
m e th a m p h e tam in e (c o u n ts 3 , 8 ); a n d p o ss e ss io n o f e q u ip m e n t, c h e m ica ls, a n d m a ter ials w ithNo. 06-5625 4

rea so n to b eli ev e the yw o u ld b e u sed to m an u fa cture m e th am p h etam ine (c o u n ts 4, 9). Def e n d a n ta l s o p l e a d e d g u i l t yt o o n e c o u n te a c h o f a t t e mpt e d ma n u f

a c tu r e o f 5 gr am s or
m ore of m ethamphet ami ne ( count7) , and pos s es s i on w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e mar i j uana ( count13)
. T he t w o s ei zed f i r earm s r es ul t ed i n p leas fo r p os s es s i on of fi r earm s byan unl aw ful us er of cont r ol l ed s ubs t ance s , i n fur t her ance of a drug t r aff i cki ng cr i m e, and havi ng pr evi ous l ybeen c onvi ct ed of a cr i m e of dom es t i c vi ol ence ( count s 10, 11, and 12)
. A l l of t he count s w er e gr ouped t oget her forgui del i ne s ent enci ng purpos es exce ptforcount11,
w hi ch ca r r i ed a mandat or ycons ecut i ve 5- y ears ent ence . T he Pr es ent ence R epor t( PSR ) cal cul at ed the bas e off ense l evel t o be 38, w hi ch
c o r r e s p o n d e d t o a d ru g q u a n t i t yo f 1
. 5 k i l o g r a ms o rmo r e o f me t h a mp h e t a mi n e . US S G § 2D 1. 1(a) (3) and (c) (1)
. D efen dan t obj ect ed to t his deter m i nati on , and argued t hat the b ase offe ns e l evel s houl d have been 22. A ft ert he s ent enci ng hear i ng, t he di s t r i ctcour tfound t hat t he def endant s houl d be hel d acc ount abl e for an amount of m ethamphet ami ne corr es pondi ng t o a bas e off

ens e l evel of 28. D efe ndantdoes notchal l enge the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deci s i on appl y i ng a t w o- l evel obs t ruct i on of j us t i ce e nhance m entand deny i ng a r educt i on i n t he offe ns e l evel foracc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t yi n connec t i on w i t h t hr eat s m ade a gai ns tt he pr os ecut or and a j udge. U SSG § 3C 1. 1 and § 3E1. 1( a)
. N orhas t he governm entappea l ed from t he d i stri ctcou rt ’s rej ect i on of a si x-l evel enhan cem ent for cr eat i ng a subst anti al ri sk of harm t o t he l i fe of

a mi nor
— namel y , t he defe ndant ’ s 11- y ear - ol d daught er
— byexpos i ng h er to the ri sk s ass o ciated w ith the m an u fa cture o f m etha m p h etam ine. U S S G § 2 D 1
. 1 (b)(6 ). W i t h a t ot al offe ns e l evel of 30 and a cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryof I I I , t he s ent enci ngNo. 06-5625 5

Hadthe total o ffense level b een 2 4, the gui delin e range wouldhave be en 6 3 to 78 month s. 2 g u ideline ra n g e w as 1 2 1 to 1 5 1 m o n ths’ im p ri so n m en t. A ck n o w ledg ing the a d v isoryn ature 2 of t he gui del i nes , t he di s t r i ctcour ti m pos ed s ent ence att he t op o f the g u i del i ne r ange a nd
comm ent ed thati thad cons er vat i vel y es t i m at ed t he quant i t y of drugs i nvol ved. T he di s t r i ct
cour ts ent ence d defe ndantt o concurr entt er m s of 151 m ont hs on count s 1, 3, 5, 7, and 8; 120
m ont hs on count s 4, 9, 10, and 12; 60 m ont hs on count13; and 12 mont hs on count s 2 and 6. T o t hi s w as added the mandat or ycons ecut i ve t er m of 60 m ont hs on count11, fora t ot al term o f 2 1 1 m o n ths’ im p ri so n m en t. R ef ere n cing 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 3 5 5 3 (a ), th e d istri ct co u rt i ndi cat ed thatt hi s aggr egat e s ent ence w as s uffi ci entt o m eett he o b j e ct i ves of puni s hm entand det err ence . T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. II. A l t ho ug h the sent encing g uidel i nes are no longe r m and at ory , t he dis t ri ct cou rtm ust det er m i ne the gui del i ne r ange a s i tw oul d have pr i ort o B ookerand mustcons i dert he g u id e lin e s a lo n g w ith th e o th e r f a c to rs in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). U ni t ed St at es v. B ooker , 543 U .S
. 2 2 0 , 2 5 8 -5 9 (2 0 0 5 ). W e re v iew p o st- B ooker s ent ence s for pr ocedur al and s ubs t ant i ve
re a s o n a b le n e s s . Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 432 F. 3d 621, 623 ( 6t h C i r . 2005)
. T hi s appea l
c o n c e rn s o n e c o m p o n e n t o f p ro c e d u ra l re a so n a b len e ss
— w h e th e r th e d istric t co u rt c o rre c tly
c a lc u la te d th e s e n te n c in g g u id e lin e ra n g e . U nit ed S t ates v. D avis , 4 5 8 F .3 d 4 9 1 , 4 9 5 (6 th C i r . 2006)
. D efe ndant s peci fi cal l y ar gues t hat t he di s t r i ctcour tcl ear l yerr ed i n det er m i ni ng t he quan t i t yo f

d ru g s a t t r i b u t a b l e t o h i m f o rp u rp o s e s o f

c a l c u l a t i n g t h e b a s e o f f e n s e l e v el
u n d e r U S S G § 2 D 1 .1 (a )( 3 ). U ni t ed Sta tes v. Jenni ngs , 83 F. 3d 145, 149 ( 6t h C i r . 1996)No. 06-5625 6

The t e rm “me thamp he t ami ne ( a c tua l ) ” r e f e r s t o the w e i g hto f

the co ntr o l l e d s ub s t anc e i t s e l f i n a 3 mi xtur e o r s ub s t anc e . U SSG§ 2D1
. 1, D rugQ uant i ty Ta b l e , no t e ( B)
. T he di s tr i c tc o urtdi d n o tc o unt any of the quan tities to be actual meth amphetami ne, wh ich th e go vernmen t points to as ev iden ce that the di strict c o urt ’ s e s t i mat e w a s c o ns e rv at i v e . H o we v e r , the r e w a s no e v i de nc e showing the l e v e l o f p ur i ty o f the methamp hetamine s ei ze d o r the amo unt o f “ac tual ” methamp hetamine ty pi ca ll y p ro duc ed us ingdef

endant ’s me tho d. The di s tr i c tc o urts a i d ats e nt e nc i ngthatthe 5. 03 g r ams o f m e thamp he t ami ne wa s e qui v a l e ntt o 15 3 4 k i l o g r ams o f

m ar i juana , but the g o v e rnm e ntc o nc e de s o n a p p e a l thatthe p r o p e r

e qui v a l e nc y

w a s 10
. 06 kil ograms of marij uan a. One gram of methamph etamin e eq uals 2 kilograms of marij uan a, andone gram of meth amphetami ne (a ctual) e quals 20 kilograms of mariju ana. USS G § 2 D1 .1, Dru g Equivalen cy Tables. (clear e rror). T he di s t r i ct cour t det er m i ned t he base offe ns e l evel t o be 28, w hi ch corr es ponds t o t he equ i valentof at l east20 0 b ut l ess than 35 0 g ram s of m et ham ph et am i ne, or atl east20 bu tl ess t han 35 gr ams of met hamphet ami ne ( actual ) , oratl eas t 400 but l es s t han 700 ki l ogr ams of
m ar i j uana. T he di s t r i ctcour ts peci fi cal l yfoun d d e f e n d a n twas acc ount abl e fort he fol l ow i ng 3 qu anti t i es: 1) 1. 52 gr ams of met hamphet ami ne ( or3. 02 ki l ogr ams of mar i jua na) s ei zed dur i ng t he t r aff

i c s t op on A ugus t8, 2003; 2) 1. 351 gr ams of met hamphet ami ne ( or2. 63 ki l ogr ams o f m ar i j uana) s ei zed dur i ng t he s t op on N ovember 29, 2003; 3) 5. 03 gr ams of met hamphet ami ne ( or10. 06 ki l ogr ams of mar i j uana) t hatt he l abor at or y es t i m at ed w oul d r es ul ti f t he mi xtur e cont ai ni ng ps eudoephe dr i ne f o u n d o n Ma r c h 2 1 , 2 0 0 4 , w a s c o o k e d a ta y i e l d r a t e o f 6 5 %; 4 4) 24 gr ams of met hamphet ami ne ( or48 ki l ogr ams of m ar i j uana) r efl ect i ng t he t es t i m onyof B eth G r eenw el l ats ent enci ng t hats he w i t nes s ed def endantand anot herm an manufactur e 24 t o 28 gr ams of met hamphet ami ne (or 6 t o 8 “ei ghtbal l s ”) on M ar ch 16, 2004; and 5) 226. 8 gr ams o f

me th a mphe t ami ne ( or453. 6 ki l ogr ams of mar i j uana) r efl ect i ng an es t i m at e of the am ountt hatw oul d have r es ul t ed fr om 16 cooks as s oci at ed w i t h t he 16 H C L gener at or s found o n the pr emi s es on M ar ch 21, 2004, as s um i ng pr oduct ion o f o n l y1⁄2 ounce ( orj us tover14 gr ams) ofNo. 06-5625 7
m etha m p h etam ine p er c o o k (1 o z. = 2 8
. 3 5 g ram s). C lose e x a m in ati o n o f th e re co rd re v ea ls th at alth o u g h d ef en d an t objected to the P S R ’s cal cul at i on of drug quant i t y , he di d notdi s put e t hat he w as acc ount abl e for t he amount s l i s t ed i n i t ems 1 t hr ough 4 above. I n fac t , w hen thes e fo u r q u ant i t i es ar e t al l i ed theyequal 3 1 .9 0 1 g ra m s o f

m e th a m p h e tam in e (o r 6 3 .7 1 k ilo g ra m s o f m a riju a n a ), w h ich c o rre sp o n d s to a b ase o ff

en se lev el of

2 2
. A s n o ted ea rl ier, d ef en d an t argu es o n ap p ea l th at t h e d istri ct co u rt
s houl d have f

ound t he bas e off

ens e l evel t o be 22. T hi s l eave s onl yi t em 5— t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s es t im ati o n o f t he drug quant i t i es t o be att ri b u ted to d e fe n d an t bas ed o n the 1 6 d iscard ed H C L g en era tors fo u n d o n d ef en d an t’ s p re m ise s o n M a rc h 2 1 , 2 0 0 4 . T h e c o u rt m u st c o n sid e r q u a n tit ies n o t s p e c if ied in th e c o u n ts
o f c o n v ic tio n th a t a re “ p a rt o f th e s a m e c o u rs e o f

c o n d u c t o r c o m m o n s c h e m e o r p la n .” U S S G § 1 B 1. 3(a) (2) (r el evan tcon du ct ). W hen t he am ou nt i s uncertain , t he co urtm ust appr oxi m at e t he quant i t yof drugs forw hi ch the def endanti s m o re li kel yt han not
re s p o n s ib le
. Jenni ngs , 8 3 F .3 d a t 1 4 9 . T h e g u id e lin e s p ro v id e th a t in m a k in g th is det er m i nat i on, “t he courtm aycons i der , forexampl e, t he pri ce gener al l yobt ai ned fort he contr ol l ed s ubs t ance , fi nanci al orot herr ecor ds , s i m i l art r ans act i ons i n contr ol l ed s ubs t ance s b y th e d e f

e n d a n t, a n d th e siz e o r ca p a b ili ty o f a n y lab o ra to ry in v o lv e d .” U S S G § 2 D 1 .1 , cm t.
n. 12. T he court ’ s det er m ination i s notcl ear l yerr oneous i f i ti s s uppor t ed bycompet ent evi dence , and t h e fin d ing has “‘ s om e mi ni m um i ndi ci um of r el i abi l i t y . ’ ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Mahaf f ey , 5 3 F
. 3 d 1 2 8 , 1 3 3 (6th C ir
. 1 9 9 5 ) (cit ati o n o m itted). A t se n ten c in g , D e tec tiv e B il l M ills te stif ied th a t an H C L g e n e ra to r is a so f t p las ticNo. 06-5625 8

so d a b o ttl e w ith a tu b e a ttac h e d to it. S a lt an d m u ria tic a c id a re c o m b in e d in th e b o ttl e to
cr eat e hy dr ogen chl or i de gas ( H C L )
. T he H C L gas i s added t o t he j arcont ai ni ng t he p s e u d o e p h e d r i n e o re p h e d r i n e m i x t u r e t o e x t r a c tt h e m e t h a m p h e t a m i n e . T h e t e s t i m o n y,
w hi ch i s unr efut ed, w as t hat one H C L gener at ori s us ed percook; t hatt he ac i d degr aded the p las tic s u c h th a t ea c h H C L g e n e ra to r w o u ld o rd in a rilyb e u se d o n lyo n c e ; an d th a t, i n th is
cas e, t he 16 H C L gener at or s appea r ed t o have a l l been us ed. W e fi nd, and def endantdoes
n o t a r g u e o t h e r wi s e , t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t d i d n o t c l e a r l y e r r i n f i n d i n g t h a t t h e 1 6 HCL gen erat ors w ere as soci at ed w i t h 1 6 separat e coo ks on defe nd ant’ s prem i ses. T he co ntr ov ers y
c e n t e r s i n s t e a d o n t h e q u a n t i t yt h a tw a s e s t i m a t e d t o r e s u l tf r o m e a c h o f

t h o s e c o o k s . As D e tec tiv e M ill s e x p lain e d , an d a s th e d istric t co u rt sp e c if ica llyre c o g n ize d , the q u a n tity pr oduced i n anygi ven cook de pended noton t he H C L gener at or , buton the am ountof p se u d o e p h e d rin e o r ep h e d rin e th a t w a s u se d
. H e a d d e d th a t it n o rm a llytak e s a p p ro x im a tely 1200 pi l l s cont ai ni ng 30 m g. eac h of ps eudoephe dr i ne orephedr i ne t o m an u fa ctur e one ounce of m ethamphet ami ne. D e f e n d a n t m a in tain s o n a p p e a l th a t th e d istric t co u rt im p ro p e rlyre lied o n sta tem e n ts he m ade i n the pl ea pr off er i n det erm i ning w hat qu anti t i es t o at tri bu t e t o each of the coo ks. T he pr offe r l et t er s ent t o defe ns e couns el pr ovi ded that“no s t at ement s m ade byy ourcl i ent dur i ng t hi s pr offe rw i l l be us ed i n t he U ni t ed St at es’ c ase- i n- chi ef a gai ns ty ourcl i enti n a
c ri m in a l c a s e , o th e r t h a n in c ri m e s o f v io le n c e , u n le s s o th e rw is e p ro v id e d f o r i n th is le tte r.” D efe ns e couns el obj ect ed w hen t he pr os ecut or at t empt ed t o el i ci t t he s t at ement s dur i ng t he
s ent enci ng hear i ng, and the di s t r i ct cour t al l ow ed the t es t i m onyw hi l e expr es s l yr es er vi ng t heNo. 06-5625 9

Non etheless, bec ause the p roffer letter purpo rts to be a “stan dard” proffer agreem ent su ch th at the 5 qu es ti on c ou ld ari se a g ai n, th e g ov er

nment and

d ef en se c ouns elmay

b e w el l adv is ed to cl arif

y in th e future wh atus e , i f

any, may be ma de of

a d e f e nd ant ’ s pr of

f e r st at e ment s fo r

pur po s e s of se nt e nc i ng. ques t i on of w hethert he s t at ement s w oul d be cons i der ed atal l
. D et ect i ve M i l l s t hen t es t i fi ed t hatt h e defenda nts ai d dur i ng t he pr offe rt hathe manufactur ed and s ol d one ounce of
m ethamphet ami ne per m ont h fory ear s , and thathe had pr oduced 19 t o 20 gr ams i n cooks he d id w ith a n o th e r in d iv id u a l. D efe ndant o bj ect ed s peci fi cal l yon t he gr ounds t hatus e of the s t at ement s vi ol at ed U SSG § 1B 1. 8( a) , w hi ch pr ovi des t hatw hen “a defe ndantagr ees t o cooper ate w it h t he g o v ern m en t b y p rov iding inf o rm ati o n co n ce rnin g u n law fu l acti v it ies o f o thers, an d as p art of t hatcooper at i on agr eemen t the governm entagr ees t hats el f- i ncr i m i nat i ng i nfor m at i on pr ovi ded pur s uantt o t he agr eementw i l l notbe us ed ag ains t the defe ndant , t hen s uch i nfor m at i on s hal l notbe us ed i n det er m i ni ng the appl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange, ex ce p t t o t he ext ent pr ovi ded i n t he agr eement . ” B y i t s t er m s , how ever , U SSG § 1B 1. 8 does notr es t r i ct t he us e of i nfor m ati o n know n t o t he governm entpr i ort o ent er i ng i nt o t he coope r at i on agr eement . D efe ndantal s o r el i es on Fed. R
. E vi d. 410( 4) , w hi ch appl i es t o “anys t at ement
m a d e i n t h e c o u r s e o f

p l e a d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h a n a t t o r n e y f o rt h e p r o s e c u t i n g a u t h o r i t y w hi ch d o n o tr e s u l ti n a p l e a o f g u i l t y o rw h i c h r e s u l ti n a p l e a o f g u i l t y l a t e rw i th d r a wn .” (E m p h a sis a d d e d .) A lth o u g h n o p lea b a rg a in a g re e m e n t w a s re a c h e d , th e d e f e n d a n t d id , in fac t , pl ead gui l t y . W e need not deci de the appl i cabi l i t yof ei t hert he s ent enci ng gui del i ne or t he rul e of e vi dence beca us e t her e i s no i ndi cat i on t hat t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s det er m i nat i on as t o q uan t i t yres t ed o n those st at em ents . 5No. 06-5625 10

Th e PSRreco mmen deda high er ba se o ffense level of 38 based on th e defend ant’s statemen ts that 6 he h ad been cooking methamph etamin e for “ some 20 y ears” with out getting caugh t. Th e PSRassumedthat de f e ndantm anuf

a c tur e d m e thamp he t ami ne atar at e o f thr e e c o oks of on e o unc e p e r y e ar f o r e a c h o f 20 y ears, but th e district court prope rly rej ected these add itional quan tities as there was no competent eviden ce t o s up p o rts uc h a

de t e rmi nat i o n. A s i de fr om t he prof

fers t at ement s , t her e w as evi dence t hatt he def endantt ol d a confi dent i al i nfor m ants ever al t i m es dur i ng m oni t or ed conve r s at i ons t hathis m ethod of cooki ng m ethamphet ami ne us ed about 1400 pi l l s and w oul d y i el d an ounce ort w o of
m ethamphet ami ne. I n addi t i on, B eth G r eenw el l t es t i fi ed thats he w i t nes s ed def endant cooki ng m et hamphet ami ne day s befor e the s ear ch and thatt he cook pr oduced 24 or28 g ra m s— ro u g h ly a n o u n c e
— o f m e th a m p h e tam in e . E v e n so , the d istric t co u rt c o n se rv a tiv e ly esti m ated the q u an ti typ rod u ce d in ea ch co o k to b e 1 4 g ram s— o r 1⁄2 o u n ce
— o f a m ixture cont ai ni ng m ethamphet ami ne. W i t h t hi s det er m i nat i on, t he di s t r i ctcourt a tt ri but ed a t ot al
o f 2 2 6
. 8 g r a ms
— o r8 o u n c e s
— o f me t h a mp h e t a mi n e t o t h e d i s c o v e r yo f t h e 1 6 u s e d HCL g en era tors. T h e d istri ct co u rtd id n o t c le a rl y e rr i n fin d ing that the H C L g en era tors w ere lik e lya ss o c iate d w ith 1 6 se p a ra te c o o k s, th a t a t lea st 1⁄2 a n o u n c e o f m e th a m p h e tam in e c o u ld b e a t t r i b u t e d t o e a c h c o o k , a n d t h a t t h e s e q u a n t i t i e s we r e ma n u f a c tu r e d a s p a r to f

t h e s a me
c o u r s e o f c o n d u c t o r c o mm o n s c h e me o r p l a n a s t h e o f f e n s e s o f c o n v i c t i o n . As a r e s u l t , we fi nd t hatt he def

end an t ha s nots how n err ori n t he ca l cul at i on of t he s ent enci ng gui del i ne
r ange. AFF I RM ED
. 6