Opinion ID: 198966
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Santana's Sentence

Text: 60 Santana argues that the district court erred in determining his offense level under the United States Sentencing Guidelines because it applied a two-level enhancement under USSG § 2D1.1(b)(2)(B) (Nov. 1998), which requires such an enhancement if the defendant [has] acted as a... captain... aboard any craft or vessel carrying a controlled substance. Santana argues that the enhancement would only have been appropriate if he had actually carried out the act of transporting drugs, but is not appropriate for mere conspiracy and attempt. 61 The argument is frivolous. The offense level for the crimes of conspiracy and attempt is [t]he base offense level from the guideline for the substantive offense, plus any adjustments from such guideline for any intended offense conduct that can be established with reasonable certainty. USSG § 2X1.1(a) (Nov. 1998) (emphasis added). The adjustment in § 2D1.1(b)(2)(B) plainly is to be applied to convictions for conspiracy and attempt, so long as the necessary factual predicate for the enhancement exists. Santana does not argue that the district court could not fairly have concluded that he was the captain of a boat intended to be used to carry marijuana. His argument is simply that the substantive crime was not committed. It simply does not matter whether he actually carried the controlled substance; his conspiring and his attempt to do so warrant the application of the enhancement. 62 At oral argument, Santana argued that there was insufficient basis for the district court to determine, for sentencing guideline purposes, what quantity of marijuana should be attributed to him. He did not raise this objection below, and omitted it from his brief. We consider it waived. See United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 1990) (It is not enough merely to mention a possible argument in the most skeletal way, leaving the court to do counsel's work....); see also United States v. Berkowitz, 927 F.2d 1376, 1384 (7th Cir. 1991) (perfunctory and undeveloped arguments... are waived.) (collecting cases). 18