Opinion ID: 684947
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Calculation of the Projected Yield

Text: 33 Appellants also challenge the district court's sentence on the ground that the district court miscalculated the amount of methamphetamine for which they were responsible. 34 We hold that the district court did not err in interpreting the Sentencing Guidelines. In cases in which the amount of drugs seized does not reflect the scale of the offense, the Sentencing Guidelines invite a court to estimate the quantity that could be produced from the precursor chemical. See U.S.S.G. Sec. 2D1.4(a), Application Note 2. In addition, we have upheld approximations by district courts concerning the amount of methamphetamine a particular precursor chemical is capable of producing. See, e.g., United States v. Aichele, 941 F.2d 761, 767 (9th Cir.1991). 35 Appellants next assert that the factual basis for the court's determination was junk science and that the court's use of a three-to-one ratio between the precursor chemical and the methamphetamine yield was erroneous. The district court did not clearly err in determining the yield, however. The court relied upon the most conservative estimate of an expert witness, who had direct experience in the area and a degree in chemistry, and the appellants did not provide a witness to counter this testimony. See United States v. Roberts, 5 F.3d 365, 372 (9th Cir.1993) (upholding a district court's use of a four-to-one ratio of precursor chemical to methamphetamine); United States v. Williams, 989 F.2d 1061, 1073 (9th Cir.1993) (upholding the district court's reliance upon expert testimony).