Opinion ID: 752489
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Statutory basis for the conversion.

Text: 38 In order to determine whether conversion was appropriate, we must identify the statutory basis for that conversion. The sentencing guidelines provide a Drug Equivalency Table as a means for combining differing controlled substances to obtain a single offense level. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, comment. (n.10). The table equates different types of drugs to marijuana in order to arrive at a unified offense level. However, ephedrine is an ingredient, not a drug, and is not listed in the table. Therefore, the conversion from ephedrine to methamphetamine must take place pursuant to some other authority. 39 That authority is found in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, application note 12 (note 12). See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.11, comment. (n.3) (providing grouping instructions for related convictions involving controlled substances and listed precursor chemicals, and directing courts to consider the quantity of both the controlled substance and the listed chemical to determine the scope of the offense pursuant to application note 12 of § 2D1.1). Note 12 authorizes the sentencing court to consider [t]ypes and quantities of drugs not specified in the count of conviction. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, comment (n.12). It goes on to say that [w]here there is no drug seizure or the amount seized does not reflect the scale of the offense, the court shall approximate the quantity of the controlled substance. Id. 40 Proceeding under the conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine count, the sentencing judge could determine that the amount of ephedrine seized evidenced a capacity to manufacture methamphetamine at a higher rate than reflected by the amount of methamphetamine seized and approximate the quantity of the controlled substance by converting the ephedrine into methamphetamine. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, comment. (n.12). However, as discussed below, this is not what happened. 41