Opinion ID: 1362827
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Was the District Court's Approximation of Drug Quantity Erroneous?

Text: Under the Sentencing Guidelines, [w]here there is no drug seizure or the amount seized does not reflect the scale of the offense, a district court may estimate the quantity of the drug and may consider the size or capability of any laboratory involved. U.S.S.G. § 2D.1.1 cmt. n. 12; see, e.g., United States v. Putney, 906 F.2d 477, 479 (9th Cir.1990). Whether the method adopted by the district court to approximate the relevant quantity of drugs is proper under the Guidelines is . . . reviewed de novo, United States v. Culps, 300 F.3d 1069, 1076 (9th Cir.2002), and factual findings related to the capability of a drug operation are reviewed for clear error. United States v. Rosacker, 314 F.3d 422, 427 (9th Cir.2002). `Approximations of drug quantity must meet three criteria.' United States v. Kilby, 443 F.3d 1135, 1141 (9th Cir.2006) (quoting Culps, 300 F.3d at 1076). First, . . . the government is required to prove the approximate quantity by a preponderance of the evidence. . . . Second, the information which supports an approximation must possess sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy. Third, . . . the district court must err on the side of caution in calculating approximated drug quantity. Culps, 300 F.3d at 1076 (internal quotations, citations, and punctuation omitted).
The district court's approximation of drug quantity lacked sufficient indicia of reliability. Culps, 300 F.3d at 1076. The judge explicitly stated that his estimate was based on the Rienhardt letter and testimony, which opined that a 5,000-milliliter flask could yield 500 to 750 milligrams of methamphetamine. This calculation was unreliable. Rienhardt's letter readily admitted that the State Report was insufficient for him to estimate the quantity of methamphetamine Chase had produced: There were no weights/volumes or purity results reported for the exhibits that contained ephedrine/ pseudoephedrine, a required precursor in the synthesis of methamphetamine. A production estimate cannot be determined without weight/volume and purity results for the exhibits. There was also not a correlation between the exhibits seized at the [Twilight location] and the [State Report]. Given the limitations of the data provided to him, Rienhardt calculated a theoretical yield for the 5,000-milliliter flask. However, he emphasized that the 500 to 750 gram estimate in his letter was just a capability based on glassware. The estimate depended on an assumption that the 5,000-milliliter flask had been used, but he testified that any number of other glass jars in which methamphetamine could have been produced were reported to have been found on the premises. When the court asked Rienhardt why he assumed that the 5,000-milliliter flaskor any other glasswarehad been used, Rienhardt responded that he had made no such assumption. We have made clear that the relevant inquiry [is] not what a theoretical maximum yield would be, or even what an average methamphetamine cook would produce, but what [the] appellant[ ] [himself] could produce. Rosacker, 314 F.3d at 428 (quotation omitted). The government's expert quite candidly admitted that his calculation was a maximum theoretical yield. He explained, I was just saying the most, based on what was there, that's the most that could be produced using that glassware. This approach was unreliable as a method of estimating how much methamphetamine Chase produced. The government asserts that this court has previously approved the use of glassware to assess lab capability. The government relies on United States v. Williams, 989 F.2d 1061 (9th Cir.1993), but the methamphetamine estimate in that case reflected the amount of narcotics the defendant could have produced in the assorted glassware at the lab given the quantity of precursor chemicals seized from the property. Id. at 1073 & n. 5. In this case, no measured quantity of precursor was seized. We also upheld an estimate based in part on glassware in United States v. August, 86 F.3d 151, 152-53 (9th Cir.1996), but that case is quite distinct because of the overwhelming evidence that the district court had considered in connection with the glassware. In August, police officers had seized twenty kilograms of waste material from the site. Id. at 152. Additionally, extensive testimony from lay witnesses and a forensic chemist demonstrated that the defendants had purchased enough hydriodic acid to produce between 2,000 and 3,000 grams of methamphetamine, that the defendants had been observed in possession of approximately 1.36 kilograms of methamphetamine, and that the lab was visited by a steady stream of customers. Id. at 152-53. Because the waste material provided abundant evidence of more than one reaction, we held that it was reasonable for the district court to have taken the minimum estimate [that the flask could have produced] and multiplied it by two to reflect the fact that at least two reactions [had] occurred. Id. at 155 (emphasis altered). Rienhardt's glassware estimate, in contrast, had no reliable evidentiary basis. As Rienhardt testified, to his knowledge, no methamphetamine was seized and no measured quantities of precursors were found at the Twilight location. Unlike in August, where the twenty kilograms of waste material indicated a large-scale drug operation, no physical evidence in Chase's case corroborated Rienhardt's estimation. To the extent the district court's approximation of drug quantity relied on Rienhardt's glassware estimate, the district court erred.
The district court provided an alternative basis for its sentencing decision. Even if the court had accepted Chase's theory that the 100 empty boxes of pseudoephedrine demonstrated the production of forty grams of methamphetamine, the district court explained that it would have multiplied those forty grams by eight to account for the number of months that he believed Chase had occupied the Twilight location. This calculation would have led to the same sentencing range that resulted from the Rienhardt method. This analysis was unreasonable. The court assumed that Chase cooked once per month, that he cooked 100 boxes of pseudoephedrine on each occasion, and that he did so for eight months. The record contains no reliable evidentiary basis for any of the pivotal assumptions in the drug quantity approximation. Rosacker, 314 F.3d at 429. The only evidence at all relevant to these assumptions was Chase's own testimony that he cooked the contents of the 100 boxes in small batches over a period of time. Under the accepted multiplier method of estimating drug quantity, a court first estimates a daily or weekly quantity, then estimates the period of time over which the activity occurred, and then calculates the total. Culps, 300 F.3d at 1077. But this is permissible only where there are sufficient indicia of reliability for each of the figures included in the equation. Id. [T]his method necessarily fails when any single variable cannot be ascertained by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 1082. We insist . . . that in establishing the facts, including approximations[] underlying a sentence, the district court utilize only evidence that possesses sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy. United States v. Garcia-Sanchez, 189 F.3d 1143, 1148 (9th Cir.1999) (quotation and internal punctuation omitted); see also id. at 1149 ([A] defendant [has a] due process right to ensure the reliability of information used at sentencing.). If given the choice between a more reliable method that may produce a significant underestimate and a different method that lacks a proper evidentiary basis, the court must choose the reliable method, even if a significant underestimate results. Kilby, 443 F.3d at 1142 n. 4. Where, as here, the record contains no evidence that permits the use of the multiplier method, it simply cannot be used. Culps, 300 F.3d at 1077. The court relied on evidence lacking sufficient indicia of reliability. The approximation of drug quantity and resulting sentence were therefore erroneous. [6]