Source: http://openjurist.org/961/f2d/599
Timestamp: 2013-12-10 16:50:18
Document Index: 636647995

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 846', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 841', '§ 2', '§ 3']

961 F2d 599 United States v. Holmes | OpenJurist
961 F. 2d 599 - United States v. Holmes	Home961 f2d 599 united states v. holmes
961 F2d 599 United States v. Holmes 961 F.2d 599
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Robert HOLMES (91-3735), Daniel Ross (91-3774), Defendants-Appellants.
Nos. 91-3735, 91-3774.
Argued Feb. 14, 1992.Decided April 13, 1992.
William E. Hunt, argued, Office of the U.S. Atty., Cincinnati, Ohio, Bradley D. Barbin, briefed, Office of the U.S. Atty., Columbus, Ohio, for U.S.
Lewis E. Williams, Jr., argued, briefed, Columbus, Ohio, for Holmes.
Jeffrey Allen Berndt, argued, Columbus, Ohio, for Ross.
Robert Holmes and Daniel Ross appeal their convictions and sentences for (1) conspiracy to manufacture and possess with intent to distribute over 8,000 marijuana1 plants, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; (2) the unlawful manufacture of over 8,000 marijuana plants, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(vii); and (3) possession with intent to distribute over 8,000 marijuana plants, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(vii). Both men allege that Sentencing Guidelines § 2D1.1, United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, § 2D1.1 (Nov. 1990), and 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(vii) are unconstitutional. Holmes also alleges that the district court deprived him of his rights under the Confrontation Clause by enhancing his sentence based upon hearsay statements contained in a pre-sentence report. Finally, Holmes challenges a jury instruction. For the following reasons, we affirm.
At the district-court level, Holmes and Ross raised several objections to the pre-sentence report; however, only two of those objections are germane to this appeal. First, they asserted that Sentencing Guidelines § 2D1.1 was unconstitutional because in offenses involving 50 or more marijuana plants it equated one marijuana plant to one kilogram of marijuana even though marijuana plants are not capable of producing one kilogram of marijuana. Second, Holmes asserted that he was deprived of his rights under the Confrontation Clause because his pre-sentence report recommended a three-level enhancement under Sentencing Guidelines § 3B1.1(b) based upon hearsay statements from a co-conspirator.
In rejecting the defendants' challenge to section 2D1.1, the district court stated:
[T]he weight assigned to the plants is really meaningless, for whether each plant is considered one gram of marijuana or one ton of marihuana it has no bearing on the sentence until the weight is assigned an offense level by the Drug Quantity Table at [section] 2D1.1(c). And furthermore, the offense level is meaningless until it is assigned a guideline range in terms of months of incarceration.... [P]art of the defendant's argument must include a presumption, indeed a desire, that every aspect of the guideline calculation remains constant except the weight assigned to the individual plants. Therefore, to argue that the application of 1 kilogram to 1 marihuana plant is not 'rational' or 'reasonably' related, and yet fail to look to all of the other variables that are included in calculating the proper sentencing is an inappropriate and narrow view.
The court concluded that equating one marijuana plant to one kilogram of marijuana was not irrational and that, hence, the provision was not unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment. The district court also rejected Holmes' Confrontation Clause argument.
After making several offense-level adjustments, the district