Opinion ID: 199398
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Denial of Motion for Funds to Conduct Independent Weighing

Text: 53 In connection with his sentence, Patrick appeals the district court's denial of his motion for funds to conduct an independent weighing and examination of the amount of crack cocaine attributed to him. We review his claim for abuse of discretion, see De Jesus, 211 F.3d at 155, and find none. Patrick correctly points out that due process considerations animate motions for investigative funds under section 3006A. Still, concern for fairness does not mean that all applications should be granted regardless of merit. United States v. Mateos-Sanchez, 864 F.2d 232, 240 (1st Cir. 1998). Here, Patrick was able to extensively cross examine the government chemist, who testified as to the weight of the crack cocaine from the various transactions, and Patrick presented the court with no reason why the chemist's determinations might be questionable. Moreover, the issue Patrick argues would not affect his sentence since his conspiracy conviction renders him responsible for all reasonably foreseeable amounts of drugs distributed in furtherance of the conspiracy. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) (Relevant Conduct); United States v. Collazo-Aponte, 216 F.3d 163, 200 (1st Cir. 2000) (In the context of a drug conspiracy, a defendant is also accountable for the conduct of others if that conduct is (1) reasonably foreseeable to the defendant and (2) committed in furtherance of a jointly undertaken criminal activity.). The district court found this amount to be well over 1.5 kilograms, and there is no real claim that this finding was wrong.