Opinion ID: 752949
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: What the Government Must Show

Text: 14 A sentencing court looks to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 when setting the base offense level for a convicted defendant. The Commentary following this section is particularly helpful in guiding a court through the necessary calculations. For drug sale offenses, Application Note 12 of the Commentary is instructive. It provides in part: In an offense involving an agreement to sell a controlled substance, the agreed-upon quantity of the controlled substance shall be used to determine the offense level unless the sale is completed and the amount delivered more accurately reflects the scale of the offense. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, comment. (n.12) (1997). This language was in effect at the time Shitrit was sentenced in 1996. See Amendment 518, U.S.S.G.App. C at 341, 342, 344 (1997) (effective Nov. 1, 1995). Application Note 12 applies in this case because defendant's crime of conspiracy included an agreement to sell a controlled substance, namely the ecstasy pills. The government therefore has the burden to show either the agreed-upon quantity or the amount delivered for purposes of determining defendant's base offense level. But, the government's burden does not end there. 15 Quantity and amount are not purely mathematical calculations, but rather also embody the concept of the amount of illegal drugs a defendant intended to produce. See Desimone, 119 F.3d at 228 (Where the government contends that the defendant personally negotiated to produce a contested quantity of drugs, the proof must demonstrate that the defendant intended to produce such an amount.); Hendrickson, 26 F.3d at 332 (Thus, where the Government asserts that the defendant personally 'negotiated' to produce contested quantities ... the Government bears the burden of proving that the defendant intended to produce such an amount.). Since Shitrit challenges the government's assertion that he meant to sell genuine playboy pills in December 1995, what defendant in fact intended becomes a central element at sentencing. Thus, the prosecution has the added burden of showing that defendant believed the pills he sold contained MDMA.