Opinion ID: 712935
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Applicability of Amendment 484

Text: 6 Section 3582(c)(2) authorizes a district court to reduce a sentence when the guideline range applicable to the defendant has been lowered by a retroactive amendment. 1 United States v. Towe, 26 F.3d 614, 616 (5th Cir.1994). Section 3582(c)(2) provides that: 7 in the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered ... the court may reduce the term of imprisonment, after considering the factors set forth in Section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if such reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission. 8 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (1990). The Sentencing Commission gave Amendment 484 retroactive effect, making a motion under § 3582(c)(2) appropriate. Shaw, 30 F.3d at 28; see also U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d), p.s. (Nov.1993). 9 The decision to reduce a sentence is discretionary; therefore, we review the district court's determination for abuse of discretion. United States v. Townsend, 55 F.3d 168 (5th Cir.1995). We review the district court's factual findings for clear error. United States v. Mimms, 43 F.3d 217, 220 (5th Cir.1995). 10 In 1993, the Sentencing Guidelines Commission amended U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, clarifying what materials must be excluded from controlled substances in calculating the weight at sentencing. Specifically, the commentary to Section 2D1.1 was amended to provide: 11 Mixture or substance does not include materials that must be separated from the controlled substance before the controlled substance can be used. Examples of such materials include the fiberglass in a cocaine/fiberglass bonded suitcase, beeswax in a cocaine/beeswax statue, and waste water from an illicit laboratory used to manufacture a controlled substance. If such material cannot readily be separated from the mixture or substance that appropriately is counted in the Drug Quantity Table, the court may use any reasonable method to approximate the weight of the mixture or substance to be counted. 12 U.S.S.G.App.C., Amend. 484 (1993). 13 The district court did not find that Amendment 484 was not retroactive or that it did not affect controlled substances that were mixed with other materials. Instead, the court concluded that the wastewater exception in Amendment 484 did not apply because the statute under which he was convicted refers to the liquid containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine. 14 Under the amended guideline, only the actual weight of the controlled substance is applied in calculating the base offense level, not the aggregate weight of any mixture as required by the section in effect at the time Levay was sentence. Thus, Levay's base offense level was 34 under the court's approach because the weight of entire mixture, 9,892 grams, fell within the 3 KG to 10 KG range corresponding to a base offense level of 34. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(5) (1990). Had the court sentenced Levay using the 5.96 grams of methamphetamine as the weight of the mixture or substance then the base offense level would have been 14. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(15) (1990). 15 We find that the district court erred by misinterpreting Amendment 484, which by its plain language addresses mixtures containing a material that must be separated before the controlled substance is consumed. Here, the government's lab reports describes a mere 5.96 grams of the mixture as a controlled substance. The waste water referred to in the amendment commentary is but one example of the type of disposable material that may not be included in the weight calculated. The government concedes that the disputed material here has to be separated from the remaining liquid before it can be used. 16 The government argues alternatively that because the disputed liquid is a precursor chemical, it should be applied to the weight of the controlled substance. However, Amendment 484 specifically addresses precursor chemicals mixed with controlled substances. Of the two types of cases described by the amendment, [t]he second type of case involves the waste produced from an illicit laboratory used to manufacture a controlled substance or chemicals confiscated before the chemical processing of the controlled substance is completed. U.S.S.G., App.C. amend. 484 (citing United States v. Sherrod, 964 F.2d 1501 (5th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 975, 113 S.Ct. 1422, 122 L.Ed.2d 791 (1992), and cert. denied, 507 U.S. 953, 113 S.Ct. 1367, 122 L.Ed.2d 745 (1993), and cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1041, 113 S.Ct. 832, 121 L.Ed.2d 701 (1992)).