Source: http://ne.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180716_0002799.DNE.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 23:11:29+00:00

Document:
The Court has received the revised presentence investigation report ("RPSR") in this case. There are no motions for departure or variance. The defendant has objected (filing 160) to the RPSR.
2. There are no motions that require resolution at sentencing. The defendant does, however, raise several objections to the RPSR.
(a) First, the defendant objects to the drug quantity attributed to the defendant in the RPSR. Filing 160 at 1. Specifically, the defendant contends that the sentencing guidelines improperly treat pure methamphetamine "more harshly" than mixed methamphetamine. Filing 160 at 1 (citing United States v. Nawanna, No. CR 17-4019-MWB, 2018 WL 2021350, at *5 (N.D. Iowa May 1, 2018)). But complaining that the Guidelines are unfair isn't a proper objection to the RPSR, because the defendant isn't saying that the Guidelines calculation in the RPSR is incorrect.
The Court could vary from the Guidelines based upon policy grounds. See United States v. Abraham, 944 F.Supp.2d 723, 727-28 (D. Neb. 2013) (citing United States v. Kimbrough, 552 U.S. 85, 109 (2007)). But the undersigned has repeatedly refused to reject the methamphetamine guideline, despite being invited to do so. See United States v. Munoz-Ramon, No. 8:13-CR-244 (D. Neb. Sept. 17 and Nov. 24, 2014), aff'd, 614 Fed.Appx. 857 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 136 S.Ct. 700 (2015); see also, United States v. Carlos, No. 4:14-CR-3109 (D. Neb. July 21, 2015); United States v. Gallegos Loaiza, No. 4:13-CR-3130 (D. Neb. July 8, 2015). The Court will apply U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 at sentencing.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2