Opinion ID: 76818
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Government's Contentions as to the Weight of the LSD Issue

Text: 20 The government avers that this is a straightforward case. The statute provides for a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence for possession with intent to distribute 10 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of LSD. Section 841(b)(1)(A)(v). Insofar as the penalty statute is concerned, Grant pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute a specific amount of drugs, i.e., 10 grams or more. Id. 21 Although the facts in Chapman involved LSD mounted on a carrier medium, i.e., blotter paper, the government argues that the Supreme Court nevertheless defined mixture according to its plain and ordinary terms. Chapman, 111 S.Ct. at 1925-26. In the case of liquid LSD, the two components are intermingled, although they can perhaps be regarded as having a separate existence. Id. (where Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1449 (1986) defines a mixture to include a portion of matter consisting of two or more components that do not bear a fixed proportion to one another and that however thoroughly commingled are regarded as retaining a separate existence). 22 The government claims that what Grant distributed, what he was charged with, and what he pled guilty to, meet the statutory criteria for the imposition of the ten year mandatory minimum sentence. In addition, the government argues that it is the weight of the liquid LSD that should be considered, not the weight of the pure LSD, because the weight of the pure LSD is so minuscule that it does not adequately reflect the seriousness of the crime, i.e., 2526 drug-induced highs. See Camacho, 261 F.3d at 1075, citing United States v. Turner, 59 F.3d 481, 486 (4th Cir.1995)(quoting Section 2D1.1(c), comment. (n.16)). 23 In support of its argument that the district court acted properly in this case, the government cites case law from other circuits holding that liquid LSD is a mixture or substance for purposes of the statutory mandatory minimum sentence, and that the guidelines range is trumped by Section 5G1.1(b). See United States v. Morgan, 292 F.3d 460, 461 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 937, 123 S.Ct. 45, 154 L.Ed.2d 241 (2002)(vacating guidelines sentence in liquid LSD case and remanding for imposition of 10-year minimum sentence mandated by Section 841(b)(1)(A)(v)); see also United States v. Keresztury, 293 F.3d 750, 759 (5th Cir.2002)(following Morgan in liquid LSD case); United States v. Ingram, 67 F.3d 126, 129 (6th Cir.1995)(in pre- Neal liquid LSD case, directing district court to apply mandatory minimum sentence on remand if guidelines range is less); cf. Turner, 59 F.3d at 491-92 (in pre- Neal liquid LSD case suggesting that district court consider on remand whether statutory minimum sentence under Section 841(b)(1) and Section 5G1.1(b) override otherwise applicable guidelines range).