Opinion ID: 746978
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Meaning of Hashish Oil

Text: 12 The district court's interpretation of the meaning of hashish oil under the Sentencing Guidelines presents a legal question over which we assume de novo review, as does the legal issue of whether the term was vague or ambiguous prior to the 1995 amendment. United States v. Camilo, 71 F.3d 984, 986 (1st Cir.1995); United States v. Bohai Trading Co., Inc., 45 F.3d 577, 580 (1st Cir.1995). The sentencing court's findings of fact regarding the properties of the controlled substance itself are subject to review for clear error. Camilo, 71 F.3d at 986. 13 The following factual findings regarding the controlled substance are undisputed: (1) it is derived from marihuana plant matter (cannabis sativa), and not from marihuana resin or hashish; (2) it is a black or near-black substance resembling road tar; (3) it is not pourable at room temperature; (4) it contains tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in the 13 to 16 percent range; (5) it contains cannabinol and cannabidiol; (6) it contains no fragments of vegetation perceptible to the naked eye; (7) it contains chlorophyll and magnesium; (8) it originates in Jamaica. See 943 F.Supp. at 78. The appeal turns on whether this substance can be said to be hashish oil. 14 Under the amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines effective November 1, 1995, the following definition of hashish oil was provided: 15 Hashish oil, for the purposes of this guideline, means a preparation of the soluble cannabinoids derived from cannabis that includes: (i) one or more of the tetrahydrocannabinols (as listed in 21 C.F.R. § 1308.11(d)(25)), (ii) at least two of the following: cannabinol, cannabidiol, or cannabichromene, and (iii) is essentially free of plant material (e.g. plant fragments). Typically, hashish oil is a viscous, dark colored oil, but it can vary from a dry resin to a colorless liquid. 16 U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c), Drug Quantity Table, Note (J) (Nov. 1995). 17 Prior to November 1995, the term hashish oil was undefined in both the Code, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(D), and in the Guidelines. Moreover, the legislative history of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, which first enacted the fifty to one ratio and introduced the term hashish oil to the Code, is silent as to the meaning of the term. See Pub.L. No. 98-473, 98 Stat.2030, 2070, 2086; S.Rep. No. 98-634 (1984); H.R.Rep. No. 98-1030 (1984). Although the undisputed facts regarding the substance at issue would appear to place it within the current definition, this definition, constituting a significant and substantive addition to the guidelines, cannot be retroactively applied to these defendants. See United States v. Sanchez, 81 F.3d 9, 12 (1st Cir.1996) (Guideline amendment that is not a mere clarification, and that is not covered by the policy statement of section 1B1.10, is not to be applied retroactively). For example, this definition includes a dry resin within the scope of the term hashish oil, a matter which, as discussed below, 3 could not be considered part of the core meaning of hashish oil prior to the amendment. 18 It is clear, however, that whether or not the substance at issue is hashish oil, it certainly qualifies as marihuana under the Code: 19 The term marihuana means all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin. Such term does not include the mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, or ... [any preparations thereof]. 20 21 U.S.C. § 802(16) (Supp.1997). It is not disputed that the substance at issue in this appeal falls within this broad, catch-all definition of marihuana. The question is whether it can also be found to be hashish oil under the pre-amendment Guidelines. Appellants raise several grounds for concluding that it cannot. We need not address their contention that the term hashish oil is void for vagueness, however, because our conclusion that the application of the rule of lenity is appropriate in this case provides the appellants the relief they seek.