Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20100429_0001961.CCA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-08-17 04:06:37
Document Index: 301966115

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 801', '§ 3553', '§ 846', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 812', '§ 812', '§ 812', '§ 823', '§ 844', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 11362', '§ 11362', '§ 11362', '§ 11362', '§ 11362', '§ 11362', '§ 829', '§ 811', '§ 11362', '§ 1', '§ 11362', '§ 11362', '§ 11362', '§ 11362', '§ 11362', '§ 11362', '§ 11362', '§ 11362', '§ 8', '§ 11362', '§ 903', '§ 11362', '§ 11362']

CHARLES C. LYNCH, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: George H. WU United States District Court Judge
On August 5, 2008, defendant Charles C. Lynch was convicted by a jury of five counts of violating the federal Controlled Substance Act ("CSA"), 21 U.S.C. §§ 801 et seq. The charges arose out of his establishing and operating a medical marijuana facility - i.e. the Central Coast Compassionate Caregivers in Morro Bay, California.
In reaching the sentence in this matter, this Court has reviewed and considered inter alia the following: 1) the Indictment (Doc. No. 1)*fn1 and the "redacted" Indictment provided to the jury (Doc. No. 161); 2) the evidence admitted during the trial which began on July 23, 2008; 3) "Government's Sentencing Position for Defendant Charles C. Lynch" (Doc. No. 232); 4) "Declaration of Special Agent Rachel Burkdoll in Support of Government's Sentencing Position; Exhibits" (Doc. No. 236); 5) "Govern-ment's Position Re: Applicability of Mandatory Minimum Sentence to Defendant Charles C. Lynch" (Doc. No. 238); 6) Notice of Lodging of Mr. Lynch's Initial Position re: Applicability of the Mandatory Minimum Sentence; Exhibits" (Doc. No. 244); 7) "Charles Lynch's Position re: Sentencing Factors; Exhibits" (Doc. No. 245); 8) "Declaration in Support of Charles Lynch's Position re: Applicability of the Mandatory Minimum Sentence" (Doc. No. 246); 9) "Government's Amended Position on Applicability of Safety Valve Provision to Defendant Charles C. Lynch" (Doc. No. 249); 10) "Government's Amended Position on Applicability of Mandatory Minimum Sentences to Defendant Charles C. Lynch" (Doc. No. 250); 11) "Government's Amended Response to Presentence Report for Defendant Charles C. Lynch" (Doc. No. 251); 12) "Government's Amended Sentencing Recommendation for Defendant Charles C. Lynch" (Doc. No. 252); 13) "Statement of Sergeant Zachary Stotz in Support of Charles C. Lynch's Position re: Sentencing Factors (Doc. No. 253); 14) "Defendant's Reply to Government's Position re: Applicability of the Mandatory Minimum Sentences (Doc. No. 254); 15) "Defendant's Reply to Government's Position re: Sentencing Factors; Declaration of Charles C. Lynch" (Doc. No. 255); 16) Letters of Jurors and Prospective Jurors (Doc. Nos. 257, 258 and 262); 17) United States Probation Office ("USPO") Presentence Investigation Report (Doc. No. 259) and Addendum to the Presentence Report (Doc. No. 260); 18) USPO Recommendation Letter initially dated November 24, 2008 (Doc. No. 314); 19) "Letters in Support of Defendant's Position re: Sentencing Factors" (Doc. No. 264); 20) "Charles Lynch's Amended Initial Position re: Applicability of the Mandatory Minimum Sentence" (Doc. No. 265); 21) "Statement in Support of Defendant's Position re: Sentencing" (Doc. No. 266); 22) "Government's Notice re Defendant Charles C. Lynch" (Doc. No. 267); 23) "Government's Response to Inquiry by the Court Regarding Sentencing" (Doc. No. 276); 24) Abram Baxter's Video-Taped "Statement in Support of Defendant's Position re: Sentencing" (Doc. No. 277); 25) "Declaration of Joseph D. Elford in Support of Charles C. Lynch's Position re: Sentencing" (Doc. No. 279); 26) "Supplemental Letters in Support of Charles C. Lynch's Position re: Sentencing" (Doc. No. 280); 27) "Charles Lynch's Supplemental Memorandum of Points and Authorities re: Sentencing; Exhibits" (Doc. No. 285); 28) Government's Response to the Court's Inquiries During April 23, 2009 Hearing; Exhibits" (Doc. No. 286); 29) "Government's Filing re Defendant Charles C. Lynch" (Doc. No. 287); 30) "Government's Response to Defendant's Supplemental Memo of Points and Authorities re Sentencing" (Doc. No. 290); 31) "Charlie Lynch's Reply to Govern-ment's Response to Court's Inquiries During April 23, 2009 Hearing" (Doc. No. 289); 32) "Charlie Lynch's Reply to Government's Response to Supplemental Memorandum of Points and Authorities re: Sentencing" (Doc. No. 296); 33) "Supplemental Exhibit in Support of Charles Lynch's Position re Sentencing" (Doc. No. 297); 34) the other materials contained in the Court's file including previously submitted evidentiary material; 35) statements made on behalf of Lynch at the sentencing hearings on March 23, April 23 and June 11, 2009; and 36) the arguments of counsel on said dates. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c), this Court issues this Sentencing Memorandum which incorporates its prior positions as stated at the sentencing hearings but also more fully delineates the bases for its imposition of the sentence on Defendant Lynch.
Lynch was convicted of the following five counts: 1) conspiracy - (a) to possess and distribute "at least" 100 kilograms of marijuana, "at least" 100 marijuana plants, and items containing tetrahydrocannabinol ("THC"), (b) to maintain a premises for the distribution of such controlled substances, and (c) to distribute marijuana to persons under the age of 21 years - in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B), 856 and 859; 2 and 3) sales of more than 5 grams of marijuana to J.S., a person under the age of 21, on June 10 and August 27, 2006 in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 859(a); 4) on March 29, 2007, possession with the intent to distribute approximately 14 kilograms of material containing a detectable amount of marijuana and at least 50 but less than 100 marijuana plants in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(6) and (b)(1)(B); and 5) between about February 22, 2006 and March 29, 2007, maintaining a premises at 780 Monterey Avenue, Suite B, Morro Bay, California under the name "Central Coast Compassionate Caregivers" ("CCCC") for the purpose of growing and distributing marijuana and THC. See the Verdict (Doc. No. 175); the redacted Indictment (Doc. No. 161).
B. The Legality of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Under California and Federal Laws
The CSA establishes five schedules of controlled substances. 21 U.S.C. § 812(a). To fall within Schedule I, it must be found that:
21 U.S.C. § 812(b)(1). Congress has designated both marijuana and THC as Schedule I controlled substances.*fn2 21 U.S.C. § 812(c) - (Schedule I)(c)(10) and (17). As noted in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418, 425 (2006):
Substances listed in Schedule I of the Act are subject to the most comprehensive restrictions, including an outright ban on all importation and use, except pursuant to strictly regulated research projects. See [21 U.S.C.] §§ 823, 960(a)(1). The Act authorizes the imposition of a criminal sentence for simple possession of Schedule I substances, see § 844(a), and mandates the imposition of a criminal sentence for possession "with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense" such substances, see §§ 841(a), (b).
Thus, federal law prohibits the manufacture (i.e. cultivation), distribution, sale or possession (with intent to distribute) of marijuana. 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 215, known as the "Compassionate Use Act of 1996" ("CUA"), which is codified in California Health & Safety Code ("Cal. H & S Code") § 11362.5. See Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 5-6 (2005). The purpose of Proposition 215 was to "ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician who has determined that the person's health would benefit from the use of marijuana in the treatment" of certain conditions such as cancer, glaucoma, "or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief." Cal. H & S Code § 11362.5(b)(1)(A). A goal of Proposition 215 (which has not been achieved to date) is to "encourage the federal and state governments to implement a plan to provide for the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana to all patients in medical need of marijuana."*fn3 Id. at § 11362.5(b)(1)(C). The operative sections of the CUA provide that: 1) "no physician in this state shall be punished, or denied any right or privilege, for having recommended marijuana to a patient for medical purposes," and 2) "[Cal. H & S Code] Section 11357, relating to the possession of marijuana, and Section 11358, relating to the cultivation of marijuana, shall not apply to a patient, or to a patient's primary caregiver, who possesses or cultivates marijuana for the personal medical purposes of the patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician." Id. at § 11362.5(c) and (d). The term "primary caregiver" is defined in the CUA as "the individual designated by the person exempted under this section who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety of that person." Id. at § 11362.5(e).
After the passage of the CUA, the California courts recognized that, "except as specifically provided in the [CUA], neither relaxation much less evisceration of the state's marijuana laws was envisioned." People v. Trippet, 56 Cal. App. 4th 1532, 1546 (1997) ("We accordingly have no hesitation in declining appellant's rather candid invitation to interpret the statute as a sort of 'open sesame' regarding the possession, transportation and sale of marijuana in this state."). The issue of medical marijuana dispensaries under California law following the enactment of CUA was first considered in People ex rel Lungren v. Peron, 59 Cal. App. 4th 1383 (1997). Therein, just before the passage of the CUA, the trial court granted a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants from selling or furnishing marijuana at a premises known as the "Cannabis Buyers' Club." After the enactment of § 11362.5, the trial court modified the injunction to allow the defendants to possess and cultivate medical marijuana for their personal use on the recommendation of a physician or for the personal medicinal use of persons with medical authorization who designated the defendants as their primary caregivers, so long as their sales did not produce a profit. The court of appeal vacated the modification of the preliminary injunction finding that the CUA did not sanction the sale of marijuana even if it was on a non-profit basis and for medicinal purposes, and that marijuana providers such as the Cannabis Buyers' Club could not be designated as "primary caregivers" because they do not "consistently assume[] responsibility for the housing, health or safety" of their customers. Id. at 1395-97. See also People v. Galambos, 104 Cal. App. 4th 1147, 1165-69 (2002) (holding that Proposition 215 cannot be construed to extend immunity from prosecution to persons who supply marijuana to medical cannabis cooperatives).
In United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, 532 U.S. 483 (2001), federal authorities brought an action to enjoin (and subsequently a contempt motion against) a non-profit medical marijuana cooperative that had been distributing marijuana to persons with physician's authorizations under the CUA. The cooperative raised a defense of medical necessity that was rejected by the district court but accepted by the Ninth Circuit. The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's decision because "in the Controlled Substances Act, the balance already has been struck against a medical necessity exception." Id. at 499. As explained by the Court:
Under any conception of legal necessity, one principle is clear: The defense cannot succeed when the legislature itself has made a "determination of values." . . . . In the case of the Controlled Substances Act, the statute reflects a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception (outside the confines of a Government-approved research project). Whereas some other drugs can be dispensed and prescribed for medical use, see 21 U.S.C. § 829, the same is not true for marijuana. Indeed, for purposes of the Controlled Substance Act, marijuana has "no currently accepted medical use" at all. § 811.
In 2003, the California Legislature enacted the Medical Marijuana Program Act ("MMPA") (Cal. H & S Code §§ 11362.7 to 11362.9) wherein it sought to:
(1) Clarify the scope of the application of the [Compassionate Use Act] and facilitate the prompt identification of qualified patients and their designated primary caregivers in order to avoid unnecessary arrest and prosecution of these individuals and provide needed guidance to law enforcement officers. (2) Promote uniform and consistent application of the [Compassionate Use Act] among the counties within the state. (3) Enhance the access of patients and caregivers to medical marijuana through collective, cooperative cultivation projects.
California Stats. 2003, ch. 875, § 1, subd. (B); see also People v. Urziceanu, 132 Cal. App. 4th 747, 783 (2005). Among the provisions of the MMPA are: 1) the establishment through the California Department of Health Services of a voluntary program for the issuance of identification cards to qualified patients who satisfy the requirements of the MMPA, see Cal. H & S Code § 11362.71(a); 2) a bar under California law providing that "No person or designated primary caregiver in possession of a valid identification card shall be subject to arrest for possession, transportation, delivery, or cultivation of medical marijuana in an amount established [in the MMPA], unless there is reasonable cause to believe that the information contained in the card is false or falsified, [or] the card has been obtained by means of fraud," see id. at § 11362.71(e); and 3) the setting of a maximum of eight ounces of dried marijuana and "no more than six mature or 12 immature marijuana plants per qualified patient," see id. at § 11362.77(a).*fn4 "Primary caregiver" is given substantially the same meaning in the MMPA as it has in the CUA. Compare Cal. H & S Code § 11362.5(e) with § 11362.7(d). The MMPA envisioned collective and/or cooperative cultivation of marijuana for medical purposes. See Cal. H & S Code § 11362.775 which states:
Qualified patients, persons with valid identification cards, and the designated primary caregivers of qualified patients and persons with identification cards, who associate within the State of California in order collectively or coopera-tively to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes, shall not solely on the basis of that fact be subject to state criminal sanctions . . . .
However, Cal. H & S Code § 11362.765(a) provides that: "nothing in this section shall . . . authorize any individual or group to cultivate or distribute marijuana for profit." Nevertheless, a primary caregiver can receive "compensation for actual expenses, including reasonable compensation incurred for services provided to an eligible qualified patient or person with an identification card to enable that person to use marijuana under [the MMPA] . . . ." Id. at § 11362.765(c).
The MMPA was observed to be "a dramatic change in the prohibitions on the use, distribution, and cultivation of marijuana for persons who are qualified patients or primary caregivers . . . ." Urziceanu, 132 Cal. App. 4th at 785. It was viewed as contemplating "the formation and operation of medicinal marijuana cooperatives that would receive reimbursement for marijuana and the services provided in conjunction with the provision of that marijuana." Id.
In Raich, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of "whether the power vested in Congress by Article 1, § 8 of the Constitution '[t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution' its authority to 'regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States' includes the power to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana in compliance with California law." 545 U.S. at 5. Its answer was yes. The Court vacated the Ninth Circuit's decision ordering preliminary injunctive relief which was based on a finding that the plaintiffs therein had "demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on their claim that, as applied to them, the CSA is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress' Commerce Clause authority." Id. at 8-9. The Court did not address certain other claims raised by the plaintiffs, but not adopted by the Ninth Circuit, and remanded the case. On remand, in Raich v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 850 (9th Cir. 2007) ("Raich II"), the Ninth Circuit did address those remaining claims and held that: 1) while the plaintiffs might have a viable necessity defense, that defense would only protect against liability in the context of an actual criminal prosecution and would not empower a court to enjoin the "enforcement of the Controlled Substance Act as to one defendant," id. at 861; 2) there was no substantive due process violation under the Fifth or Ninth Amendments because "federal law does not recognize a fundamental right to use medical marijuana prescribed by a licensed physician to alleviate excruciating pain and human suffering," id. at 866; and 3) the Supreme Court's decision in Raich had foreclosed plaintiffs' Tenth Amendment claim, id. at 867.
On August 25, 2008, pursuant to Cal. H & S Code § 11362.81(d), the California Attorney General issued "Guidelines for the Security and Non-Diversion of Marijuana Grown for Medical Use" ("Cal. AG Guidelines"). See Exhibit 15 to Declaration of Special Agent Rachel Burkdoll ("Burkdoll Decl.") (Doc. No. 236); see also People v. Hochanadel, 176 Cal. App. 4th 997, 1009-11 (2009). Those guidelines recognize that "a properly organized and operated collective or cooperation that dispenses medical marijuana through a storefront may be lawful under California law" provided that it complies with the restrictions set forth in the statutes and the guidelines. See Cal. AG Guidelines at page 11, Exhibit 15 to Burkdoll Decl. The Cal. AG Guidelines also state that:
The incongruity between federal and state law has given rise to understandable confusion, but no legal conflict exists merely because state law and federal law treat marijuana differently. Indeed, California's medical marijuana laws have been challenged unsuccessfully in court on the ground that they are preempted by the CSA. (County of San Diego v. San Diego NORML (July 31, 2008) ___ Ca1.Rptr.3d ___, 2008 WL 2930117.) Congress has provided that states are free to regulate in the area of controlled substances, including marijuana, provided that state law does not positively conflict with the CSA. (21 U.S.C. § 903.) Neither Proposition 215, nor the MMP, conflict with the CSA because, in adopting these laws, California did not "legalize" medical marijuana, but instead exercised the state's reserved powers to not punish certain marijuana offenses under state law when a physician has recommended its use to treat a serious medical condition.
In light of California's decision to remove the use and cultivation of physician-recommended marijuana from the scope of the state's drug laws, this Office recommends that state and local law enforcement officers not arrest individuals or seize marijuana under federal law when the officer determines from the facts available that the cultivation, possession, or transportation is permitted under California's medical marijuana laws.
Id. at page 3.*fn5
In November 2008, the California Supreme Court in People v. Mentch, 45 Cal. 4th 274 (2008), addressed the issue of who may qualify as a "primary caregiver" under the CUA and the MMPA. Defendant Mentch grew marijuana for his own use and for five other persons. Both he and the other five had authorizations from physicians for medical marijuana. He testified that he sold the marijuana "for less than street value" and did not make a profit from the sales. At his trial, Mentch sought to argue that he was a primary caregiver when he provided medical marijuana to the other five persons who had a doctor's recommendation. The California Supreme Court rejected that argument observing that the statutory definition of a "primary caregiver" was delineated as an individual "who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health or safety" of that patient. Id. at 283; see also Cal. H & S Code § 11362.5(d). Therefore, the mere fact that an individual supplies a patient with medical marijuana pursuant to a physician's authorization does not transform that individual into a primary caregiver because he or she will not have necessarily and previously and consistently assumed responsibility for the patient's housing, health and/or safety. Id. at 284-85. The fact that the individual is the "consistent" or exclusive source of the medical marijuana for the patient makes no difference. Id. at 284-86. Likewise, "[a] person purchasing marijuana for medicinal purposes cannot simply designate seriatim, and on an ad hoc basis, . . . sales centers such as the Cannabis Buyers' Club as the patient's 'primary caregiver.'" Id. at 284 (quoting Peron, 59 Cal. App. 4th at 1396).
During a press conference on February 24, 2009, in response to a question whether raids on medical marijuana clubs established under state law represented federal policy going forward, United States Attorney General Eric Holder reportedly stated, "No, what the president said during the campaign, you'll be surprised to know, will be consistent with what we'll be doing in law enforcement. He was my boss during the campaign. He is formally and technically and by law my boss now. What he said during the campaign is now American Policy."*fn6 See United States v. Stacy, No. 09cr3695, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18467 at *12 (S.D. Cal. 2010). On March 19, 2009, Holder explained that the Justice Department had no plans to prosecute pot dispensaries that were operating legally under state laws.*fn7 Id.
C. Nature and Circumstances of Defendant's Criminal Conduct
As characterized and stated by USPO in its November 24, 2008 Sentencing Recommendation Letter ("Sent. Rec. Let.") (Doc. No. 314), with which this Court agrees:
[T]his case is not like that of a common drug dealer buying and selling drugs without regulation, government oversight, and with no other concern other than making profits. In this case, the defendant opened a marijuana dispensary under the guidelines set forth by the State of California . . . . His purpose for opening the dispensary was to provide marijuana to those who, under California law, [were] qualified to receive it for medical reasons.
Sent. Rec. Let. at page 4.
In 2005, Lynch obtained a prescription for medical marijuana to treat his headaches. See Presentence Investigation Report ("PSR") ¶ 101 at page 20 (Doc. No. 259).*fn8 In order to obtain "medical grade" marijuana, he drove to various marijuana dispensaries operating publicly in Santa Cruz and Santa Barbara. Id.; see also Sent. Rec. Let. at page 6. Noting the dearth of such dispensaries in San Luis Obispo County where he resided, Lynch investigated opening such an enterprise. He researched the law on medical marijuana distribution. See paragraphs 2-3 of Declaration of Charles Lynch ("Lynch Dec.") (Doc. No. 246). By January 2006, he opened a medical marijuana dispensary in Atascadero, California. That venture was "short lived" because the city officials used zoning restrictions to close his shop. Sent. Rec. Let. at page 4 (Doc. No. 314); PSR at ¶ 10 (Doc. No. 259).
Prior to opening the CCCC in Morro Bay, Lynch took a variety of steps. They included, inter alia: 1) calling an office of the Drug Enforcement Agency ("DEA") where, according to Lynch, he inquired regarding the legality of medical marijuana dispensaries;*fn9 2) hiring a lawyer (Lou Koory) and seeking advice in regards to his operations (see Lynch Decl. at ¶ 4, Doc. No. 246); 3) applying to the City for a business license to operate a medical marijuana dispensary, which he obtained (id. at ¶ 7); and 4) meeting with the City of Morro Bay's Mayor (Janice Peters), city council members, the City Attorney (Rob Schultz) and the City Planner (Mike Prater) (id. at ¶ 8). The aforementioned city officials did not raise any objections to Lynch's plans. However, the City's Police Chief issued a February 28, 2006 memorandum as to Lynch's business license application indicating that, while the medical marijuana dispensary might be legal under California law, federal law would still prohibit such an operation and "California law will not protect a person from prosecution under federal law."*fn10 Trial Exhibit No. 179; see also Trial Exhibit No. 180.
The CCCC was not operated as a clandestine business. It was located on the second floor of an office building with signage in the downtown commercial area. See Declaration of Janice Peters at ¶ 4 (Doc. No. 246). An opening ceremony and tour of the facilities were conducted where the attendees included the city's Mayor and members of the city council. Id. Both the Mayor and Lynch separately passed out their business cards to proprietors of commercial establishments within the immediate vicinity of the CCCC who were told that, should they have any concerns or complaints about the CCCC's activities, they should notify either the Mayor or Lynch. Id. at ¶ 5; see also Lynch Decl. at ¶ 6 (Doc. No. 246). No one ever contacted either the Mayor or Lynch to make a complaint. Id.
Lynch employed approximately ten people to help him run CCCC as security guards, marijuana growers, and sales staff. See PSR at ¶ 9. He worked at the store most days. Id. He ran background checks on prospective employees and did not hire anyone with a felony record or who was an "illegal alien."*fn11 See Lynch Decl. at ¶¶ 15, and 22 (Doc. No. 246). Employees signed in and out via an electronic clock and Lynch ran payroll through "Intuit Quickbooks." Id. at ¶¶ 22-23. Employees had to execute a "CCCC Employee Agreement" which contained various disclosures and restrictions.*fn12 See Exhibit 11 to Burkdoll Decl. (Doc. No. 236).
Lynch installed a security system which included video recording of sales transactions within the facility. Lynch Decl. at ¶ 17; see also PSR at ¶ 9. The CCCC kept "detailed business records" of its purchases and sources of the marijuana. See PSR at ¶¶ 37-38. It likewise had extensive records as to its sales, including copies of the customers' medical marijuana authorizations and driver's licenses. See Redacted Indictment ¶ B-4 of Count One on page 3 (Doc. No. 161). No one under 18 was permitted to enter unless accompanied by a parent or legal guardian. Lynch Decl. at ¶ 17. Entrance to the CCCC was limited to law enforcement/government officials, patients, caregivers and parents/legal guardians. Id. at 29.
Before being allowed to purchase any marijuana product, a customer had to provide both medical authorization from a physician and valid identification. Id. at ¶ 27; see also PSR at ¶ 21. The status of the doctors listed on the medical authorization forms were also checked with the California Medical Board website. Lynch Decl. at ¶ 25. CCCC also had a list of physicians who could re-issue expired medical authorization cards.*fn13 A customer would have to sign a "Membership Agreement Form" wherein the buyer had to agree to the listed conditions which included, inter alia: not opening the marijuana container within 1000 feet of the CCCC, using the marijuana for medical purposes only, abiding by the California laws regarding medical marijuana, etc. See Exhibit 10 to Burkdoll Decl. In addition, the customer had to execute a CCCC "Designation of Primary Caregiver" form wherein the buyer: 1) certified that he or she had one or more of the medical conditions which provide a basis for marijuana use under the CUA, and 2) named the CCCC as his or her "designated primary caregiver" in accordance with Cal. H & S Code § 11362.5(d) and (e). Id. at Exhibit 9. Evidence presented at trial showed that the CCCC not only sold the marijuana but also advised customers on which varieties to use for their ailments and on how to cultivate any purchased marijuana plants at their homes.
Nearly all of the persons who supplied the marijuana products to the CCCC (referenced as "vendors") were themselves members/customers of the CCCC. See Report of Investigation at ¶ 3, Exhibit 1 to Burkdoll Decl. Lynch documented "the weight, type, and price of marijuana that he purchased from "vendors." Id. Between CCCC's opening in April of 2006 to its closing in about April of 2007, CCCC paid vendors over $1.3 million for marijuana products. Id. at ¶ 4. During that period, the top ten suppliers were paid between $150,097.50 and $30,567.50. Id. Lynch was CCCC's third largest provider and received $122,565. Id. The second highest supplier was John Candelaria II, who was a CCCC employee during part of the relevant time. Id.
Lynch maintains that he did not open CCCC to make money and that he never got his initial investment back. See Lynch Decl. at ¶ 24. The DEA claims that, based upon CCCC's records between April 2006 and March 2007, CCCC had sales of $2.1 million. See ¶ 2 of Exhibit 1 to Burkdoll Decl. However, neither side has provided an actual/reliable accounting to this Court as to CCCC's business records to determine to what extent, if any, CCCC was a profitable venture.*fn14
As noted in the Sent. Rec. Let. at page 5, Lynch hired certain employees "who, by their conduct and association to the CCCC, undermined the defendant's well-intended purpose of helping those in need of medical marijuana." For example, one employee (Abraham Baxter) sold $3,2000 worth of marijuana from the CCCC to an undercover agent away from the premises without the prerequisite production of any medical authorization. Id. However, there was "nothing to indicate that the defendant knew of Baxter's extracurricular activities other than defendant's own meticulous accounting should have alerted him of unexplained inventory reductions." Id. at page 6.*fn15 Baxter has submitted a videotaped statement that Lynch was unaware of Baxter's improper sales. See Doc. No. 277. Likewise, there is evidence of observations by San Luis Obispo County Sheriffs of two CCCC employees (i.e. John Candelaria and Ryan Doherty) distributing bags ...