Opinion ID: 723421
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Base Offense Level Under the Sentencing Guidelines

Text: 8 Dean contends that his sentence must be vacated as illegal because it is the result of a misapplication of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Specifically, Dean argues that the district court erred in (1) accepting the joint recommendation of the government and defense counsel that Dean's base offense level was 30; (2) sentencing Dean on the basis of the total number of marijuana plants that were grown or harvested by Dean's co-conspirators during the time that Dean was a member of the conspiracy, rather than considering for purposes of relevant conduct only the quantity of marijuana that Dean was provided to sell; and (3) accepting the government and defense counsel's legal conclusion that Dean's base offense level was to be determined based on the number of plants rather than the weight of the harvested marijuana. 9 By not raising the propriety of the district court's calculation of Dean's Guidelines sentence on direct appeal, Dean waived this challenge. Under the law of this circuit, nonconstitutional sentencing errors that have not been raised on direct appeal have been waived and generally may not be reviewed by way of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States v. Schlesinger, 49 F.3d 483, 485 (9th Cir.1994); see also Evenstad v. United States, 978 F.2d 1154, 1158 (9th Cir.1992) (holding that § 2255 challenges to sentencing not suggesting constitutional error are all barred because [petitioner] did not appeal.). Dean did not challenge the calculation of his Guidelines sentence on direct appeal; as such, the collateral challenge to the Guidelines calculations will not be considered on the merits.