Opinion ID: 591486
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Limitation of Angelet's Use of Medical Records

Text: 20 Following Hancock's arrest, she was admitted to Charter Peachford Hospital for treatment of her drug addiction. During the thirty days of her treatment, Hancock's counselors took notes regarding her responses to certain questions and concerning their thoughts with regard to her problems and her progress. 21 During cross-examination at trial, Angelet attempted to read these notes and records to Hancock and then ask her questions about them. Specifically, Angelet attempted to ask Hancock if she told the counselors that she had a problem telling the truth or with being manipulative. Upon objection, the court ruled that Angelet could not read from the hospital records, but he could ask Hancock questions concerning whether she had problems telling the truth or with being manipulative, and if her answers were inconsistent with what she told counselors at Charter Peachford, he could impeach her with the hospital records. 22 We find no error in the district court's limitation on the use of portions of the medical records. The district court's finding that the records were admissible only for impeachment purposes is a discretionary determination that will be disturbed only if there is a clear showing of an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Russell, 703 F.2d 1243 (11th Cir.1983). We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion. 23 In support of his contentions, Angelet cites United States v. Lindstrom, 698 F.2d 1154 (11th Cir.1983); and United States v. Partin, 493 F.2d 750 (5th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 903, 98 S.Ct. 298, 54 L.Ed.2d 189 (1977). In both of those cases, however, the records offered into evidence reflected the witnesses' mental illness and were offered to impeach the witnesses' credibility. The records reflected the witnesses' mental condition during the time periods about which they were testifying; thus, the records were highly probative of the witnesses' credibility. 24 Hancock's records did not reflect treatment for mental disorders; they reflected treatment for drug addiction. Thus, introduction of the complete records was not warranted because they were not, as a whole, probative of Hancock's credibility. Those portions that were inconsistent with her testimony at trial, however, would be probative of her credibility and could be used for impeachment. The district court did not abuse its discretion by limiting Angelet's use of the records in this manner. 25 Finally, Angelet contends that the district court improperly prohibited him from asking Hancock if she would be afraid if Howard was released from prison. Angelet argues that Howard was the source of Hancock's drug addiction and that she was testifying against Howard to keep him in jail so he could not tempt her into using drugs again. He argues that this shows Hancock's bias and is relevant because it goes to credibility. 26 The district court ruled that the question was irrelevant to Angelet's defense and prohibited him from asking the question. Like the district judge, we do not see any relevance of this question to Angelet's defense. Whether Hancock is afraid of Howard has no bearing on her testimony with regard to Angelet. We find no abuse of discretion in the district court's ruling. 27 For the reasons stated above, we affirm Angelet's conviction. Thompson 28 Thompson raises two issues on appeal: (1) whether the district court erred in assigning a weight of 100 grams per marihuana plant in calculating Thompson's base offense level; and (2) whether the district court erred in refusing to grant Thompson a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. A. Calculation of Base Offense Level 29 In accordance with a plea agreement, Thompson pleaded guilty to possession of forty marihuana plants. At sentencing, the court assigned a weight of 100 grams per marihuana plant resulting in a drug quantity of 4000 grams and a base offense level of twelve, under United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, § 2D1.1(c)(16) (Nov. 1989). 30 Thompson contends that the court erred in assigning a weight of 100 grams per plant because 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(D) indicates that the actual weight of the plants should be used unless fifty or more marihuana plants are involved. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(D) provides that: 31 In the case of less than 50 kilograms of marihuana, except in the case of 50 or more marihuana plants regardless of weight, ... such person shall, ... be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 5 years.... 32 At the time of Thompson's sentencing, U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 provided as follows: 33 In the case of an offense involving marihuana plants, if the offense involved (a) 50 or more marihuana plants, treat each plant as equivalent to 1 Kg of marihuana; (b) fewer than 50 marihuana plants, treat each plant as equivalent to 100 G of marihuana. Provided, however, that if the actual weight of the marihuana is greater, use the actual weight of the marihuana. 34 U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 (Nov. 1989). 35 Thompson argues that the assignment of 100 grams per plant is arbitrary and inconsistent with the sentencing statute and that the sentencing statute must prevail. In support of his argument, Thompson cites United States v. Streeter, 907 F.2d 781 (8th Cir.1990), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Wise, 976 F.2d 393 (8th Cir.1992), where the Eighth Circuit held that the Sentencing Commission's decision to equate one plant and 100 grams of marihuana when less than fifty plants are involved is inconsistent with Congress's determination that weight alone is determinative, rather than the number of plants, when fewer than fifty plants are involved. Id. at 790. 36 We find Thompson's reliance on Streeter unpersuasive. In Streeter, the court stated that [i]f there were some reason to believe that the average weight of marihuana plants grown in quantities of less than fifty is one hundred grams, the Commission's choice could perhaps be defended. Id. The court relied on the fact that the Commission gave no rational basis for its decision to equate one marihuana plant with 100 grams of marihuana. Thus, the court concluded that the Guideline was arbitrary and should not be given effect. Id. 37 Subsequent to Streeter, the commentary to section 2D1.1 was amended and the following was added: 38 In cases involving fifty or more marihuana plants, an equivalency of one plant to one kilogram of marihuana is derived from the statutory penalty provisions of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A), (B), and (D). In cases involving fewer than fifty plants, the statute is silent as to equivalency. For cases involving fewer than fifty plants, the Commission has adopted an equivalency of 100 grams per plant, or the actual weight of the usable marihuana, whichever is greater. The decision to treat each plant as equal to 100 grams is premised on the fact that the average yield from a mature marihuana plant equals 100 grams of marihuana. 39 U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, comment. (backg'd) (Nov. 1991) (emphasis added). We conclude that although this amendment became effective after Thompson was sentenced, it is merely a clarifying amendment that did not change the substance of the Guideline. Therefore, we may refer to it in interpreting section 2D1.1. See United States v. Shores, 966 F.2d 1383, 1388 n. 2 (11th Cir.1992); United States v. Howard, 923 F.2d 1500, 1504 (11th Cir.1991). 40 This amendment sets forth the rationale for the Commission's treatment of offenses involving fewer than fifty marihuana plants, U.S.S.G.App. C, at 230-31, and provides a rational basis for this treatment; therefore, we find that Streeter is no longer persuasive. As this court stated in United States v. Osburn, 955 F.2d 1500, 1506 (11th Cir.1992), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 290, 121 L.Ed.2d 215 [g]iven this justification and the dictum contained in Streeter, the Guidelines would likely survive a direct challenge concerning the validity of applying a 100 gram per plant equivalency to offenses involving fewer than 50 plants. Today, we hold that the Guideline does survive such a challenge. We affirm the district court's calculation of the quantity used to determine Thompson's base offense level. B. Acceptance of Responsibility 41 Thompson also contends that the district court erred in refusing to grant him a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. He argues that he entered a guilty plea and agreed to testify against his codefendants at trial if necessary. Further, he argues that the Government recommended a two-level reduction and that the district court abused its discretion by refusing the reduction. 42 The record supports the district court's decision. The probation officer who prepared Thompson's presentence report recommended that the two-level reduction be denied because Thompson had tested positive for marihuana while on probation in a related state case. Thompson admitted that due to stress arising out of his pending sentencing in this case, he had used marihuana. This court has held that the sentencing court has discretion to deny a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility due to the defendant's continued drug use. United States v. Scroggins, 880 F.2d 1204, 1215-16 (11th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1083, 110 S.Ct. 1816, 108 L.Ed.2d 946 (1990). The sentencing court's determination that the defendant is not entitled to a reduction for acceptance of responsibility is entitled to great deference and will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous. United States v. Pritchett, 908 F.2d 816 (11th Cir.1990). The district court's determination here was not clearly erroneous. 43 For the reasons stated above, we affirm Thompson's sentence.