Opinion ID: 202742
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Review of the District Court's Interpretation of Section 2D1.11

Text: 22 The fulcrum for our plain error review of the district court's calculation of Goodhue's Base Offense Level is whether any error was clear or obvious. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993); Duarte, 246 F.3d at 60. Where the error defendant asserts on appeal depends upon a factual finding the defendant neglected to ask the district court to make, the error cannot be `clear' or `obvious' unless the desired factual finding is the only one rationally supported by the record below. United States v. Donnelly, 370 F.3d 87, 95 (1st Cir.2004) (quoting Olivier-Diaz, 13 F.3d at 5). With respect to matters of law, an error will not be clear or obvious where the challenged issue of law is unsettled. See Connelly v. Hyundai Motor Co., 351 F.3d 535, 546 (1st Cir.2003); United States v. Marino, 277 F.3d 11, 32 (1st Cir.2002). 23 Here, Goodhue challenges the district court's calculation of the Base Offense Level on two grounds. First, Goodhue speculates that had the district court conducted a factual finding as to the weights of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, such a factual finding could have resulted in a lower Base Offense Level. Appellant Br. at 17. This challenge is akin to an argument that the district court ought to have held an evidentiary hearing on the weight of the pure precursor chemicals. Such an argument has no legal traction. 24 In United States v. DeCologero, 821 F.2d 39 (1st Cir.1987), this Circuit noted the district judge's significant discretion over whether to hold evidentiary hearings by stating that such hearings cannot be convened at the whim of a suitor, made available like popsicles in July, just because a passerby would like to have one. Id. at 44. Even if an objection to the lack of an evidentiary hearing had been made, review of such a decision would be narrow, looking only for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Gerante, 891 F.2d 364, 367 (1st Cir.1989). 25 Goodhue failed to object to the district court's application of the sentencing guidelines without an evidentiary hearing as to the pure weight of the controlled substances. This situation is directly controlled by United States v. Garcia, 954 F.2d 12 (1st Cir.1992), where this Court held that an appellant effectively obviated the need for an evidentiary hearing by objecting to interpretations based upon facts instead of challenging the underlying facts themselves. Id. at 19. In light of the substantial deference given to a district court whether to hold such an evidentiary hearing and the failure of Goodhue to request one, it is neither clear nor obvious that the district court erred in applying the aggregate weight of the mixture directly to the Sentencing Guidelines. See Donnelly, 370 F.3d at 95. 26 Goodhue's second argument on appeal is that in the absence of evidence of the pure weights of the controlled substances, the district court erred by not applying instead section 2D1.11 to 65.87 grams of red phosphorous. Appellant Br. at 18. Such application would have resulted in the lower Base Offense Level of 24. Goodhue characterizes this argument as an issue of law that turns on an interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines. See id. at 16. Even were we to assume that this is an issue of interpretation, the unsettled nature of the law precludes a finding of plain error. See Connelly, 351 F.3d at 546. 27 In response to the Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act of 2000, 7 section 2D1.11 8 was amended to provide a new chemical quantity table specifically for ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.11, app. C, amend. 611 (2004). One of the purposes behind this amendment was to reduce the distinction between section 2D1.1, which concerns intent to manufacture methamphetamine, and section 2D1.11, which addresses attempt to manufacture methamphetamine from ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine (PPA). Id. The relationship between the two guideline sections is evidenced from a cross reference in section 2D1.11 to section 2D1.1 that requires the use of the Base Offense Level calculated under the latter section if the offense involves the unlawful manufacture of a controlled substance and the resulting offense level exceeds that calculated under section 2D1.11. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.11(c)(1) (2004). 28 The current section 2D1.11 calculates the Base Offense Level by reference to an ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and PPA drug quantity table. Id. § 2D1.11(a), (d). To calculate the weight in an offense that involves two or more precursor chemicals, the section recommends the use of the aggregate weight of the quantities of all such chemicals. Id. § 2D1.11 n.B. 29 This calculation, and thus the application of section 2D1.11, is straightforward where the weights of the pure precursor chemicals are known. It becomes more difficult where the precursor chemical is mixed with other substances that do not constitute controlled substances. Section 2D1.11 does not directly address the general issue of such mixtures. It does, however, address the specific situation of a mixture in tablet form. Id. § 2D1.11 n.C. This section note states, [i]n a case involving ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine tablets, use the weight of the ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine contained in the tablets, not the weight of the entire tablets, in calculating the base offense level. Id. 9 In a tablet situation, therefore, only the weight of the pure precursor chemicals is applied to the drug quantity tables, not the total weight of the tablet itself. See id. 10 30 As the district court recognized, the tablet situation differs from the general mixture situation because the percentage of the controlled substance in a tablet is usually specifically noted on the tablet package. See S. Tr. at 7:1-7. Thus, in a tablet, there is typically no question as to the weight of the pure precursor chemicals. 31 The district court did not face the clearly defined tablet situation. Instead, it faced a more difficult situation — applying section 2D1.11 to a mixture where the amounts of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine had not been determined. This broader question, though not directly addressed in section 2D1.11, is directly addressed in section 2D1.1. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1 n.A & cmt. n. 1 (2004). Section 2D1.1 similarly assigns a Base Offense Level by the application of the weight of the controlled substance to a predetermined range. Note A of section 2D1.1 states: 32 Unless otherwise specified, the weight of a controlled substance set forth in the table refers to the entire weight of any mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of the controlled substance. If a mixture or substance contains more than one controlled substance, the weight of the entire mixture or substance is assigned to the controlled substance that results in the greater offense level. 33 The section further instructs that the weight of the entire mixture ought not include materials that must be separated from the controlled substance before the controlled substance can be used. Id. § 2D1.1 cmt. n. 1. If a mixture cannot be so separated, the court may use any reasonable method to approximate the weight of the mixture of substance to be counted. Id. 34 The district court identified and carefully considered the inconsistency of using the aggregate weight of mixtures containing undetermined amounts of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine under section 2D1.11 in light of the tablet note's exclusion of substance weight not derived from a controlled substance. S. Tr. at 22:25-23:7. The district court addressed this situation by applying three methods all derived from the starting point of 53.08 grams of mixture attributable to Goodhue. Id. at 22:8-24. The court calculated the Base Offense Level by: 1) treating the mixture as pure ephedrine and pseudoephedrine under section 2D1.11; 2) cross-referencing to section 2D1.1 and calculating the equivalent weight of marijuana; and 3) applying Goodhue's yield analysis, and then section 2D1.11 to the result. Id. Calculations under all three methods resulted in a Base Offense Level of 28. Id. at 23:8-13. 35 The district court navigated through this unguided and unsettled territory by considering and ultimately adopting both paths suggested by counsel and his own independent judgment that calculating the marijuana equivalent under the cross-reference to section 2D1.1 may be most appropriate given that section's specific guidance on such mixtures. As a result, it cannot be held that the district court committed plain error by not interpreting section 2D1.11 as requiring the use of the weight of the red phosphorous as a default.