Opinion ID: 724637
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: determination of the amount of methamphetamine for

Text: SENTENCING PURPOSES 20 The district court's interpretation and application of the Sentencing Guidelines themselves are both reviewed de novo. United States v. Oliver, 60 F.3d 547, 554 (9th Cir.1995); United States v. France, 57 F.3d 865, 866 (9th Cir.1995). However, the district court's factual findings in the sentencing phase are reviewed for clear error. Oliver, 60 F.3d at 554 (citing United States v. Buenrostro-Torres, 24 F.3d 1173, 1174 (9th Cir.1994)). 21 Under § 2D1.1, methamphetamine (actual) 6 (pure methamphetamine) is sentenced at an offense level ten times greater than ordinary methamphetamine. See § 2D1.1, Drug Equivalency Table; United States v. Bogusz, 43 F.3d 82, 86 (3d Cir.1994), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 1812 (1995). At the November 3, 1994 sentencing evidentiary hearing, Gary Strongen, a senior forensic chemist with the DEA, testified that the methamphetamine at issue in this case was pure methamphetamine hydrochloride (crystal meth), and that the hydrochloride salt accounted for approximately 20% of the methamphetamine hydrochloride. SER at pp. 259-62. Because of the presence of this hydrochloride salt, Appellant argues that, under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, 7 the methamphetamine was not pure, and therefore the district court should have reduced the amount of methamphetamine used for sentencing purposes by 20%. The district court did not do so, and sentenced Appellant based upon more than 1.1 KG of methamphetamine (actual). ER at p. 94; see also Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) at p. 8. 22 We find that Appellant's interpretation of § 2D1.1 is incorrect, and that the district court correctly applied § 2D1.1. Although few courts have addressed the issue, the weight of authority appears to indicate that methamphetamine hydrochloride (crystal meth) is, in fact, pure methamphetamine. At the November 3, 1994 evidentiary hearing, DEA Expert Strongen stated that he considered the whole thing, including the hydrochloride salt, pure methamphetamine. See SER at pp. 261-64 (Strongen stating that methamphetamine hydrochloride is pure methamphetamine); see also Bogusz, 43 F.3d at 87 (methamphetamine (actual) refers to the net amount of methamphetamine hydrochloride produced) (emphasis added). Moreover, under § 2D1.1, the hydrochloride salt is considered part of the actual methamphetamine. SER at p. 262. The commentary to the Sentencing Guidelines also clearly states that [a]ny reference to a particular controlled substance in these guidelines includes all salts, isomers, and all salts of isomers. § 2D1.1, Application Note 5. Clearly, salts and isomers are not considered impurities under the Guidelines. In United States v. Decker, 55 F.3d 1509, 1512 (10th Cir.1995), an analogous case, the Tenth Circuit followed this Application Note to hold that the district court had not erred in adding the weight of an isomer in calculating the amount of methamphetamine (actual) for sentencing purposes. 23 Therefore, the district court correctly found that, under § 2D1.1, the term methamphetamine (actual) includes hydrochloride salts. Accordingly, the district court correctly applied § 2D1.1 by not deducting 20% from the weight of the methamphetamine (actual). Further, the district court correctly calculated Appellant's base level to be 36. 8 Thus, we affirm the district court's sentencing determination.