Opinion ID: 655386
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: issues

Text: 18 The fifth issue raised by Killion is whether the district court erred in not applying the rule of lenity. Killion contends that because of the lack of any statutory application of the phrase, mixture or substance containing a detectable amount, the rule of lenity is applicable, and 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) and § 2D1.1 of the Guidelines must be construed in his favor. 19 We hold that there is no reasons to resort to the rule of lenity in this case. As noted in Chapman, the rule of lenity is not applicable unless there is a 20 grievous ambiguity or uncertainty in the language and structure of the Act, such that even after a court has  'seize[d] every thing from which aid can be derived'  it is still left with an ambiguous statute. The rule [of lenity] comes into operation at the end of the process of construing what Congress has expressed, not at the beginning as an overriding consideration of being lenient to wrongdoers. 21 Chapman, --- U.S. at ----, 111 S.Ct. at 1926 (citations omitted). 22 A straightforward reading of the statute and the Guideline at issue here, requiring that the weight of the entire mixture be included in determining a defendant's base offense level so long as the mixture contains a detectable amount of the controlled substance in question, does not produce results so absurd or glaringly unjust as to raise reasonable doubt in regard to Congressional intent. See id. at ---- - ----, 111 S.Ct. at 1926-27.