Opinion ID: 2981150
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Drug Quantity as Relevant Conduct

Text: Velez also argues that the district court erred in determining the quantity of drugs to be used as relevant conduct for purposes of calculating his offense level under the advisory Guidelines. The district court’s drug quantity calculations are reviewed for clear error. United States v. Olsen, 537 F.3d 660, 663 (6th Cir. 2008). “Questions involving the interpretation of the guidelines are legal questions that this Court reviews de novo.” United States v. Murphy, 241 F.3d 447, 458 (6th Cir. 2001). “A factual finding is clearly erroneous ‘when the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’” United States v. McGee, 494 F.3d 551, 554 (6th Cir. 2007)(quoting Tran v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 937, 943 (6th Cir. 2006)). 10 No. 11-5433 United States v. Velez A defendant involved in a drug conspiracy is generally responsible for the drug quantities for which he is directly involved and any quantity that is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the conspiracy. United States v. Caver, 470 F.3d 220, 246 (6th Cir. 2006). “A drug quantity need only be established by a preponderance of the evidence, and an estimate will suffice so long as it errs on the side of caution and likely underestimates the quantity of drugs actually attributable to the defendant.” United States v. Anderson, 526 F.3d 319, 326 (6th Cir. 2008). The government must prove the amount to be attributed to a defendant. United States v. Swanberg, 370 F.3d 622, 625 (6th Cir. 2004). In the Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”), the probation officer determined that the amount of oxycodone attributable to Velez as relevant conduct was 8,400 30-mg oxycodone tablets. Converted to 1,688.4 kilograms of marijuana, see U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 cmt. n.10(E), which specifies that one gram of oxycodone equals 6,700 grams of marijuana, this yielded a base offense level of 32 (applicable to 1,000 to 3,000 kilograms of marijuana) under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(a)(3)(c)(4). The probation officer arrived at this amount by considering the testimony of Mombrun, who stated that he delivered 200 to 1,000 tablets to Velez every week or every other week from early 2008 to August 2008, an average of 600 tablets on 14 occasions. Velez objected to the calculations of the probation officer. He noted that no drugs were seized from him, and argued that a more reasonable estimate would be to hold him accountable for 200 tablets delivered every other weekend from March 1, 2008, through August 2, 2008, in other words, for eleven weekends, for a total of 2,200 tablets. The district court found that Velez should be accountable for at least 8,400 oxycodone tablets. This was a conservative estimate. Mombrun testified that he supplied Velez with a total of 11 No. 11-5433 United States v. Velez 10,000 to 20,000 pills. Although this testimony alone would be sufficient to support the district court’s quantity finding, the record includes additional evidence that Velez supplied these oxycodone tablets to other conspirators. Even accepting Horton’s lower quantity estimates, there is testimony that Horton obtained at least 9,000 pills from Velez. Smallman testified that he obtained 3,000 pills from Velez. Eyzaguirre testified at his plea hearing that he obtained 700 pills from Velez. Jordan Pierce testified that Velez supplied him with at least 1,500 pills. Michael Cline purchased at least 2,500 pills from Velez beginning in March of 2008, and Joel Rickard purchased at least 150 pills from Velez. Velez also supplied Chris Cortless with at least 900 pills starting in May 2008. These quantities are more than sufficient to support the district court’s findings. Further, as the district court noted, only 4,975.1 oxycodone tablets would be required to meet the threshold amount of 1,000 kilograms of marijuana necessary to qualify for a base offense level 32. See § 2D1.1(a)(3)(c)(4) and cmt. n.10(E). Velez argues that Mombrun’s testimony was not credible and that the probation officer’s quantity determination was based on the allegedly unreliable testimony of accomplices who were cooperating with the government and who were drug users testifying about events which occurred two years in the past. However, “[t]estimonial evidence from a coconspirator may be sufficient to determine the amount of drugs for which another coconspirator should be held accountable.” United States v. Hernandez, 227 F.3d 686, 697 (6th Cir. 2000). In many instances, the conspirators in this case corroborated each other’s testimony. In regard to the use of drugs by witnesses, Velez presented the testimony of Dr. Jonathan Lipman, a neuropharmacologist, regarding the effects of Roxycodone, a pain reliever, and Xanax 12 No. 11-5433 United States v. Velez (alprazolam), a tranquilizer/sedative, on memory. However, Dr. Lipman was unable to offer an opinion to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that any witnesses in the case gave unreliable testimony due to their use of oxycodone or alprazolam because he was not aware of any relationship between the period of their drug use and the events about which they testified. Thus, the district court properly concluded that his testimony was not relevant to the issues before the court. In addition, Dr. Lipman testified that the users of these drugs could build up a tolerance for them and still function. Smallman testified that the pills did not bother his memory, as he had a high tolerance for them. The district court correctly found by a preponderance of the evidence that Velez should be accountable for at least 8,400 oxycodone tablets.