Opinion ID: 801210
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Weight of Drugs

Text: Mr. Varughese, the government's forensic chemist, testified that in accordance with standard lab procedures, he tested the contents of only one of the two baggies purchased by the CI from Haziz in the arranged drug transaction. Seizing on this fact, Haziz argues that he should only be held responsible for the weight of the crack in the tested baggie (5.494 grams), not the total weight of both baggies (12.05 grams). At sentencing, the District Court determined that the calculation was appropriate at 12.05 grams. The Court did not clearly err in reaching this conclusion. The government bears the burden of proving the weight of the drugs involved in an offense by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. McCutchen, 992 F.2d 22, 25 (3d Cir.1993). When a defendant challenges a drug quantity estimate based on an extrapolation from a test sample, the government must show, and the court must find, that there is an adequate basis in fact for the extrapolation and that the quantity was determined in a manner consistent with accepted standards of reliability. Id. at 25-26. This does not, however, require the government to adduce any sort of statistical evidence; rather, reasonable reliability is the touchstone of the determination. Id. at 26. Haziz simply recites this reasonable reliability standard and offers a conclusory statement that the standard was not met. The record, however, shows otherwise. Although Varughese tested only one of the two bags of suspected crack, he explained that this was standard and accepted procedure for the Philadelphia Police Department: [A]ccording to our lab policy, we are analyzing only 10 percent of the exhibit we are submitted.... [T]hat same policy [applies] for every case we are getting. [7] Varughese emphasized that the police lab was fully accredited and that, in order to maintain accreditation, it need[s] to show for each and every case [the] same procedures, regardless of the number of items submitted for testing. Additionally, he testified that the baggies purchased by the CI had a similar appearance, size, and packaging. Finally, the fact that the CI agreed to buy one-half ounce (about fourteen grams) of crack gives rise to a strong inference that the 12.05 grams of chunky white substance in the two baggies was crack cocaine, even without the fact, and fact it be, that the two baggies were purchased from the same source in the same transaction. In light of the use of an established testing procedure, the similar size and appearance of the packages, and the incriminating circumstances of the transaction, the weight calculation was reasonably reliable. As such, the District Court's determination of the quantity of drugs involved in the offense was not clearly erroneous.