Opinion ID: 800027
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Determining the Correct Guidelines Analogue for BZP

Text: After David was sentenced, we issued two opinions that control the outcome in this case. In United States v. Chowdhury , we held that the district court had not clearly erred in determining that a controlled substance composed of BZP and TFMPP, which is `sold as MDMA, promoted as an alternative to MDMA and is targeted to the youth population,' should be considered most closely related to MDMA for the purpose of U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. 639 F.3d 583, 587 (2d Cir.2011) (quoting Schedules of Controlled Substances, 69 Fed.Reg. 12794-01, 12795 (Mar. 18, 2004)). We also determined that, although there was a discrepancy between the controlled substance in connection with which Chowdhury was convicted (BZP alone) and the actual chemical composition of the pills (BZP plus TFMPP), the district court was not required to overlook the presence of TFMPP in its sentencing analysis. Id. ([W]e also reject Chowdhury's argument that because the crime for which he was convicted related solely to the possession of BZP, the District Court should have limited its analysis to the closest substitute for BZP as opposed to BZP-TFMPP.). Three months later, in United States v. Figueroa , we held that the district court had erred when it determined that the most closely related substance to BZP alone was MDMA. [2] 647 F.3d 466 (2d Cir. 2011). We determined that, unlike in Chowdhury, the record on appeal does not allow us to conclude that the pills found in defendants' van were a mixture of BZP and TFMPP containing a similar chemical structure to MDMA, designed to mimic the effects of MDMA, or containing a similar potency to MDMA. Id. at 470. We therefore held that the District Court's reliance on the fact that BZP and MDMA are `interchangeable' on `the street' is insufficient to justify the conclusion that MDMA is the appropriate substitute for BZP alone or with trace quantities of other substances pursuant to § 2D1.1. Id. Although we acknowledged in Figueroa that the district court might ultimately determine that MDMA was the appropriate substitute based on the composition of the pills, we found that in the absence of an evidentiary hearing to determine the nature of the mixture, its chemical structure, and its intended neurological effects, the record on appeal d[id] not permit us to determine whether the proper substitute is amphetamine . . ., MDMA, or another substance on the Drug Equivalency Table, U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, tbl. D. Id. Accordingly, we remanded to the district court for an evidentiary hearing to determine the composition of the pills and the most closely related substance referenced in the Guidelines, pursuant to the criteria established under § 2D1.1, cmt. n. 5. Id.
Because the District Court did not have the benefit of our decisions in Chowdhury and Figueroa, both of which were decided after the District Court imposed sentence in this case, we do not reach the issue of factual error but instead remand for resentencing. We also note that the PSR contained what may have been a significant error: it noted that the seized substance is [BZP], while failing to note the presence of TFMPP and caffeine. The District Court apparently was not provided with a copy of the DEA lab report. We would independently remand on this basis as well. Furthermore, the Sentencing Commission's treatment of BZP may be evolving. Recent proposed amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines indicate that the Commission intends to add a separate marijuana equivalency category for BZP. [3] The District Court should have the opportunity to determine if the Commission's proposed amendments would affect David's sentence. We believe the District Court might well have conducted its equivalency analysis differently had it had the benefit of our opinions in Chowdhury and Figueroa, more complete and accurate information about the composition and effect of the pills in question, or access to the Sentencing Commission's proposed Guideline amendments. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, cmt. n. 5. Accordingly, we remand to the District Court to permit it to reevaluate the various considerations identified by the Sentencing Guidelinesincluding, as appropriate, the nature, chemical structure, and intended neurological effects of the substance contained in the pillsand to thereby determine the most closely related substance referenced in the Guidelines and the appropriate marijuana equivalency of the mixture. See id.