Opinion ID: 171132
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Relevant Drug Quantities

Text: Mr. Jarvi's motion challenged the PSR's conclusion that he should be sentenced for possession of 853.05 grams of methamphetaminecalculated from the cash found in his apartmentin addition to the 22.73 grams of methamphetamine mixture actually found there. The guidelines provisions for related conduct allow a drug offender to be sentenced for cash in a case where cash is seized and where either no drug is seized or the amount seized does not reflect the scale of the offense . . . provided the court finds by a preponderance that the cash is attributable to drug sales which were part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the conviction count. United States v. Rios, 22 F.3d 1024, 1028 (10th Cir.1994). Yet it is not clear whether the cash seized here was part of the same course of conduct as Mr. Jarvi's count of methamphetamine possession. The district court made no such factual finding. Significantly, the district court found the evidence of a nexus lacking with respect to the two guns found in the closet along with the money. After the government presented evidence on the subject, the court found that the guns did not have a temporal and spatial relationship to the drugs. R. Vol. IV, at 5. The guns and money were in the same closet; the drugs were in the attic. It is possible that if it reached the issue, the court would reach the same conclusion with respect to the cash that it did with respect to the guns. Mr. Jarvi's lawyer did not object to this enhancement within 14 days after receiving the presentence report, as required by Rule 32(f)(1). However, if an objection is not made under Rule 32(f)(1), a sentencing court may nonetheless for good cause, allow a party to make a new objection any time before sentence is imposed. Fed. R.Crim.P. 32(i)(1)(D). Thus, on remand the district court should determine whether there is good cause to allow Mr. Jarvi to object to this conversion. See, e.g., United States v. Angeles-Mendoza, 407 F.3d 742, 749 & n. 11 (5th Cir.2005). If so, and if the objection has merit, the advisory Guidelines range may be substantially lower than 87-108 months. Furthermore, even if no formal objection to the Guidelines range is timely, the substance of this argument may also be ground for a variance.