Opinion ID: 165955
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Drug amount attributable to Lauder

Text: 50 At sentencing, the district court used the Drug Equivalency Tables in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 to determine the amount of drugs involved in the drug distribution conspiracy. Adhering to findings in the PSR, the court concluded that the conspiracy entailed 10,346 kilograms of marijuana, all of which was attributed to Lauder for sentencing purposes. According to Lauder, he should have only been held responsible for the amount of cocaine buried in the backyard (745 grams) because none of the other drugs found in this case have a nexus, link, or connection to Mr. Lauder. Aplt. Br. at 20. 51 We review a sentencing court's determination of the quantity of drugs attributable to a defendant for clear error. United States v. Morales, 108 F.3d 1213, 1225 (10th Cir.1997). U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a), which deals with relevant conduct for sentencing purposes, states that 52 (1)(A) all acts and omissions committed, aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, procured, or willfully caused by the defendant; and 53 (B) in the case of a jointly undertaken criminal activity ..., all reasonably foreseeable acts and omissions of others in furtherance of the jointly undertaken criminal activity [are relevant conduct for sentencing purposes]. 54 In a controlled substances case, a defendant is accountable for all quantities of contraband with which he was directly involved and, in the case of a jointly undertaken criminal activity, all reasonably foreseeable quantities of contraband that were within the scope of the criminal activity that he jointly undertook. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3 comment. (n.2) (emphasis added). The government must prove the amount of drugs attributable to each defendant by a preponderance of the evidence. Morales, 108 F.3d at 1226. 55 As demonstrated by our discussion above regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, the district court did not clearly err in finding that Lauder was either directly involved with the drugs attributed to him, or, at the least, that the amounts were reasonably foreseeable quantities ... that were within the scope of criminal activity jointly under[taken]. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3 comment. (n.2). Furthermore, in calculating drug amounts, the district court followed the procedure outlined in § 2D1.1 of the sentencing guidelines, including the directive to approximate the quantity where the amount of drugs seized does not reflect the scale of the offense. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 comment. (n.12). We therefore decline to grant any relief to Lauder on this ground.