Opinion ID: 655386
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: issues 2-3

Text: 14 Killion's second issue alleges that the Guidelines improperly and unconstitutionally classify P-2-P as a Schedule II stimulant. He contends that P-2-P is not a Schedule II stimulant because there is no scientific evidence available to establish that it is a stimulant. Killion's third issue asserts that the district court erred in applying the Guidelines due to this improper and unconstitutional classification of P-2-P. 15 We are unpersuaded that the Guidelines incorrectly and unconstitutionally classify P-2-P. P-2-P is a known and listed immediate precursor chemical used in the manufacture of amphetamine and methamphetamine. See 21 U.S.C. § 802(6), (22). We have held that amphetamine and methamphetamine are properly classified as Schedule II controlled substances. United States v. Lafoon, 978 F.2d 1183, 1184-85 (10th Cir.1992); United States v. Sullivan, 967 F.2d 370, 373 (10th Cir.1992), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 285, 121 L.Ed.2d 211 (1992), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 1013, 122 L.Ed.2d 161 (1993). Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 811(e), the Attorney General may ... place an immediate precursor in the same schedule in which the controlled substance of which it is an immediate precursor is placed or in any other schedule with a higher numerical designation. 21 U.S.C. § 811(e). It is clear from the statute that the Attorney General chose to classify P-2-P as a Schedule II controlled substance because the controlled substances of amphetamine and methamphetamine are so classified. We find no impediment to the Guidelines' classification of P-2-P.