Opinion ID: 629121
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Bloomer's Appeal

Text: 17 Bloomer contends that the district court misapplied the sentencing guidelines in approximating the quantity of drugs involved in his offense. He argues that by adding the amount of methamphetamine found to be distributed to the amount found to be manufactured, the district court counted the same amount of drugs twice. We agree. 18 In calculating the amount of drugs involved, the court first found that the evidence showed that Bloomer had distributed methamphetamine in a total amount of at least 208 grams but no more than 426 grams. Next, the court estimated that the precursor chemicals found in Bloomer's lab could reasonably have produced a quantity of 504 grams. The court then added these two amounts together to arrive at a total amount in the range of 700 to 1,000 grams. In this case, however, the addition of these two figures amounted to double-counting. The 504 figure was based on the precursor chemicals found in Bloomer's home and on all the precursor chemicals Bloomer had ever ordered dating back to 1982. It was therefore an estimate of the total production capabilities of Bloomer's lab. Because the government admitted that there is no evidence that Bloomer distributed any drugs other than those that he manufactured, the approximation of the quantity of drugs that he manufactured, the 504 figure, includes the quantity that he distributed, the figure ranging from 208 to 426. 19 Because of the above error, we remand the case for resentencing.
20 Bloomer next contends that the district court erred in increasing his base offense level by two levels pursuant to U.S.S.G. Sec. 3B1.3, which provides for an increase if the defendant used a special skill, in a manner that significantly facilitated the commission or concealment of the offense. Bloomer claims that he did not demonstrate any special skill in his manufacture of methamphetamine because he was a self-taught amateur. We disagree. 21 Although the sentencing court's findings of fact regarding the special skill enhancement are subject to the clearly erroneous standard, its ruling concerning what constitutes a special skill involves a legal interpretation of the guidelines and is reviewed de novo. See United States v. Rivera, 971 F.2d 876, 893-94 (2d Cir.1992) (citing United States v. Shouldberg, 895 F.2d 882, 884 (2d Cir.1990)). See also United States v. Stroud, 893 F.2d 504, 507 (2d Cir.1990). A special skill is one usually requiring substantial education, training, or licensing. See U.S.S.G. Sec. 3B1.3, comment. (n. 2) (emphasis added). Because the comment adds the word usually, we find no basis for limiting the increase to only those with formal educations or professional skills. See United States v. Hummer, 916 F.2d 186, 191 (4th Cir.1990) (finding that the use of the word usually in the note to U.S.S.G. Sec. 3B1.3 implies that substantial training is not a mandatory prerequisite to making a special skills adjustment), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 1608, 113 L.Ed.2d 670 (1991). Bloomer presents the unusual case where factors other than formal education, training, or licensing persuade us that he had special skills in the area of chemistry. As noted by the government, Bloomer experimented often as an amateur chemist with explosives and fireworks. He built an extremely sophisticated home chemistry laboratory. He also used his chemical acumen professionally in teaming up with chemist Mark Malros to conduct a joint project to develop a sophisticated medical testing device. Furthermore, the presentence report indicates Bloomer took courses at various colleges, including Cornell University, and his own witness testified that Bloomer attended college to become a chemist. As accurately stated by the district court, Bloomer was a self-educated, strongly technical chemist, with an extraordinary sophistication. Accordingly, we find that the district court properly applied the two-level enhancement for use of a special skill.