Opinion ID: 1192807
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Objection at Sentencing

Text: Clarke also argues the district court erred in overruling her objection to using the full amount of the biphase liquid to determine her sentence. Relying on her argument that only the usable or ingestible methamphetamine in the biphase liquid could be attributed to her, Clarke maintains the district court improperly used the full amount of the biphase liquid to apply the five year mandatory minimum of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B) and to calculate Clarke's base offense level for Clarke's advisory Guidelines range. We review a district court's interpretation of a sentence-enhancement statute de novo. United States v. Speakman, 330 F.3d 1080, 1081 (8th Cir.2003). Before imposing a sentence, the district court must begin by correctly calculating the applicable advisory Guidelines range. United States v. Viezcas-Soto, 562 F.3d 903, 906 (8th Cir.2009) (citation omitted). We review a district court's application of the Guidelines de novo, United States v. Blankenship, 552 F.3d 703, 704 (8th Cir. 2009), and a sentencing court's finding of fact regarding the quantity of drugs for clear error. United States v. Palega, 556 F.3d 709, 716 (8th Cir.2009) (citing United States v. Atkins, 250 F.3d 1203, 1211 (8th Cir.2001)). The district court provided two reasons for overruling Clarke's objection to using the full amount of the biphase liquid to determine Clarke's sentence. The district court first noted the jury was instructed, in order to find Clarke guilty on counts three and four, the jury must find the counts involved fifty or more grams of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine. Because the jury found Clarke guilty on these counts, the district court declined to speculate on, or second guess, the jury's findings, and opined it was not Congress's intent to have the district court make an independent finding at sentencing regarding the amount of pure methamphetamine in a mixture or substance. Second, the district court followed this court's decision in Kuenstler instead of decisions from other Circuit Courts of Appeals cited by Clarke. The district court did not commit error in finding the five-year mandatory minimum sentence applied to Clarke because the entire weight of the biphase liquid was properly attributed to Clarke under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B). See Gentry, 555 F.3d at 666; Kuenstler, 325 F.3d at 1023. The district court also did not err in applying the entire weight of the biphase liquid to determine Clarke's advisory Guidelines range. Under U.S.S.G. § 2D.1.1(c)(7), a base offense level of 26 is assigned to a drug crime involving between fifty and two hundred grams of methamphetamine. Note B to U.S.S.G. § 2D 1.1(c) states, In the case of a mixture or substance containing ... methamphetamine, use the offense level determined by the entire weight of the mixture or substance. Application Note 1 to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 declares a mixture or substance has the same meaning as in 21 U.S.C. § 841, but does not include materials that must be separated from the controlled substance before the controlled substance can be used ... [such as] waste water from an illicit laboratory used to manufacture a controlled substance. [6] Although Kuenstler and Gentry control the amount of the biphase liquid attributed to Clarke under 21 U.S.C. § 841, these cases did not address the definition of mixture or substance under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 as applied to mixtures or substances containing methamphetamine, nor has another decision of this court addressed the issue. See Gentry, 555 F.3d at 665-66; Kuenstler, 325 F.3d at 1019. We, however, need not reach the issue in this case because the record before us reveals there was a preponderance of the evidence that the biphase liquid was not waste water which should be excluded under the Guidelines. See United States v. Berger, 553 F.3d 1107, 1109 (8th Cir.2009) (This court may affirm the judgment of the district court on any basis supported by the record); Atkins, 250 F.3d at 1211 (stating, at sentencing, the government must prove the quantity of drugs attributed to a defendant by a preponderance of the evidence). Clarke stipulated at trial that the biphase liquid weighed over fifty grams and contained methamphetamine, and the government's expert testified at trial that the biphase liquid could be usable, traffickable, or stored for future methamphetamine manufacturing. In contrast, Clarke submitted no evidence that the biphase liquid was waste water. Therefore, the district court did not clearly err in using the entire amount of the biphase liquid to calculate Clarke's base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1.