Opinion ID: 561861
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Manufacture of Amphetamines.

Text: 26 James Burks was sentenced to 104 months of imprisonment. This sentence was calculated by the district court using the testimony of the undercover investigator, Steve Clemmons. Mr. Clemmons testified that Burks offered to sell him a drug lab for $50,000 that was capable of producing between seven or eight pounds of amphetamine. Section 2D1.4 (note 2) of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines provides that where there is no drug seizure or the amount seized does not reflect the scale of the offense the sentencing judge shall approximate the quantity of the controlled substance and may consider the price generally obtained for the controlled substances ... and the size and capability of any laboratory involved. However, a review of the record of Investigator Clemmons' testimony at sentencing further reveals that 27 (a) no drug lab was ever shown to exist, 28 (b) no equipment of any kind nor any drugs were ever discovered, 29 (c) Investigator Clemmons never saw any drugs nor did he smell the distinct odor about Burks' person that usually persists on individuals involved with amphetamine production. 30 The trial court also concluded that no laboratory was found, that no location of the lab was ever given, and that Burks' had a propensity to exaggerate. 31 Furthermore, the Government's evidence showed that defendant Burks was to meet and obtain possession of even small amounts of the amphetamines and then transfer possession to the informant. Additionally, the Government acknowledges that Burks was to have obtained the amphetamines from his source and this procedure called for Burks to leave the money with his source and at a later time that same source of supply would inform Burks of the location of the amphetamines. These facts are not indicative of the course of conduct exhibited by one who owned a drug lab. We are concerned that in a case such as this, where the Government conducts an undercover investigation, inclusion of offenses that ostensibly stem from exaggerated and fabricated facts may in the future open the door for serious error. 32 It is important to note, although not required, that the presentence investigation by the probation officer also recognized the extremely tenuous nature of the inclusion of amounts of drugs involved derived from this discussion of an alleged drug lab. This Court cannot find clear and convincing evidence even of the existence of a drug lab. To sentence Mr. Burks on this minute amount of evidence, without more, would be unjust. We therefore hold that the Court's finding on any quantity of controlled substances exceeding six ounces was not supported by the evidence.B. Possession of Firearm. 33 Burks' final contention is that his offense level was improperly enhanced by two levels for the possession of a firearm during the commission of a drug offense. 34 Section 2D1.1(b)(1) provides for the enhancement of two levels if a dangerous weapon was possessed during the commission of the offense in question. The Government contends that subsequent to his arrest, a search of defendant Burks' home revealed a 9 mm. semi-automatic machine pistol with three loaded clips capable of holding at least 30 rounds each, which was found under the defendant's bed. Furthermore, in a tape recorded conversation of January 11, 1989, Burks stated that he would not hesitate to use a weapon during this drug transaction. 35 The appellant Burks argues that all of the conversations concerning any drug purchases with the informant occurred outside Burks' residence. Moreover, the appellant argues that at the time of Burks' arrest, Burks was headed away from his residence and any gun found in his home could not have been related to the instant drug transaction. 36 The trial court's application of the guidelines will be given due deference by the reviewing court. Ehret, 885 F.2d at 444 (8th Cir.1989). 37 Furthermore, the Government need not prove facts used in sentencing under the Guidelines beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 444. 38 Therefore, having carefully reviewed the record as a whole, we cannot say this finding is clearly erroneous and we affirm the two-level enhancement. 39 For the reasons given, we affirm the verdict of the jury for a conviction as to the count charged and the finding that Burks' possession of a firearm during a drug offense was not clearly erroneous. We reverse the district court's findings on the issue of the quantity of amphetamines to be included in Burks' baseline offense level, and remand for proceedings otherwise consistent with this opinion. 40