Opinion ID: 2790613
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Increased Offense Level for Imported Drugs

Text: In calculating Mr. Hohn’s advisory Guideline sentence, the district court enhanced his offense level on the conspiracy charge by two levels because it found the methamphetamine he distributed was imported. Section 2D1.1(b)(5) of the Guidelines provides that “[i]f (A) the offense involved the importation of . . . methamphetamine or the manufacture of . . . methamphetamine from listed chemicals that the defendant knew were imported unlawfully, and (B) the defendant is not subject to an adjustment [for a mitigating role], increase by 2 levels.” U.S.S.G. Manual § 2D1.1(b)(5) (2013).6 Mr. Hohn challenges this enhancement, contending that “[t]he Government offered no evidence that the methamphetamine [he] distributed . . . actually came from Mexico.” Aplt. Br. at 28. “We review de novo any legal questions in a district court’s application of the Guidelines, and we review any relevant factual findings for clear error, giving due deference to the district court’s application of the guidelines to the facts.” United States v. Serrato, 742 F.3d 461, 468 (10th Cir.) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 2739 (2014). The government need only prove a sentencing 6 “The § 2D1.1(b)(5) enhancement previously was found at § 2D1.1(b)(4).” United States v. Biao Huang, 687 F.3d 1197, 1205 n.4 (9th Cir. 2012). - 16 - enhancement by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Gambino–Zavala, 539 F.3d 1221, 1228 (10th Cir. 2008). The government met its burden here. Throughout the trial, in the presentence report, and at sentencing, witnesses testified that methamphetamine distributed in the conspiracy was obtained from individuals of Mexican origin or descent. Although this evidence alone would have been insufficient to meet the government’s burden to show that the methamphetamine was imported from Mexico, at sentencing a sheriff’s deputy testified that in his opinion the methamphetamine was of Mexican origin. He based this opinion on three factors: (1) methamphetamine is manufactured in larger quantities or batches in Mexico than in the United States, often in Mexican “super labs”; (2) Mexican methamphetamine tends to be of a higher purity than methamphetamine manufactured in the United States; and (3) when methamphetamine is imported from Mexico into the United States, individuals will add a filler or cut it before distributing it, and the meth distributed in this case had been cut. See R., Vol. 2 at 2583-84, 2588. The deputy’s observations concerning the purity and admixture of the methamphetamine were supported by the analysis of the DEA chemists who testified in this case. The district court properly applied the importation enhancement to Mr. Hohn’s base-offense level. - 17 -