Opinion ID: 745
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Submit Drug Quantity and Quality to a Jury

Text: Finally, Mr. Ferrel argues that the district court violated his right to have the drug quantity and purity submitted to a jury and to have that element proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr. Ferrel did not make this precise objection below; rather, his objections appeared to focus on the use of the methamphetamine found in Guero's vehicle as relevant conduct for sentencing purposes. [8] The contours of Mr. Ferrel's objections and our resultant standard of review, however, need not be definitively resolved, because even if Mr. Ferrel properly raised the issue, we conclude that the district court did not err. First, to the extent Mr. Ferrel contends that the district court should have permitted him to generally plead guilty to the offense but try the sole issue of drug quantity to a jury, we disagree. A defendant has no right to plead guilty to some elements of an offense but have a jury decide others. If a defendant wants a jury to decide an element, he must go to trial. Second, in the plea agreement, Mr. Ferrel admitted to facts that satisfied the drug-quantity element; thus, a jury finding on this issue would be superfluous. [9] Third, the indictment specifically alleged the drug-quantity element, which distinguishes Mr. Ferrel's cases from those he cites in which we held that a defendant cannot be convicted and sentenced under § 841(b)(1)(A) or (B) when the indictment references only § 841(b)(1)(C). See, e.g., Jones, 235 F.3d at 1236-37; cf. Cernobyl, 255 F.3d at 1220-21 (same, but indictment charged a violation of § 841(b)(1)(D)). Finally, Mr. Ferrel's suggestion that only a jury, and not the court, could make relevant-conduct findings regarding the amount and purity of the methamphetamine he reasonably foresaw Guero and the CI transporting to Colorado is untenable. See United States v. Hall, 473 F.3d 1295, 1312 (10th Cir.2007) (post- Booker, a district court may find sentencing facts, including drug quantity for purposes of relevant conduct, by a preponderance of the evidence). Therefore, the district court's resolution of the drug quantity issue and its failure to submit that issue to the jury was not error.