Opinion ID: 778825
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: General Criteria

Text: 21 The applicable sentence range for both drug trafficking and maintaining a drug house depends upon the amount of drugs involved. See U.S.S.G. §§ 2D1.1(c) (Nov. 1, 2001) & 2D1.8(a) (Nov. 1, 2001). Where the amount of drugs seized does not reflect the scale of the offense, the district court may approximate the quantity of the drugs. Id. § 2D1.1, comment (n. 12); August, 86 F.3d at 154. 22 Approximations of drug quantity must meet three criteria. First, as with all factors which increase a defendant's offense level, the government is required to prove the approximate quantity by a preponderance of the evidence. August, 86 F.3d at 154. The district court must `conclude that the defendant is more likely than not actually responsible for a quantity greater than or equal to the quantity for which the defendant is being held responsible.' Id. (quoting United States v. Walton, 908 F.2d 1289, 1302 (6th Cir.1990)). Second, the information which supports an approximation must possess `sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy.' Id. (quoting U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3(a)). Third, since a defendant's sentence depends in large part upon the amount of drugs attributable to his conduct, and approximation is by definition imprecise, the district court must err on the side of caution in calculating approximated drug quantity. Id. Because approximation prescribes punishment for unconvicted conduct, courts must proceed carefully ... in the estimation of drug quantities. United States v. Scheele, 231 F.3d 492, 498 (9th Cir.2000). A district court's failure to consider the margin of error when arriving at the quantity of drugs on which the sentence was based constitutes error. Id. at 500. 3 23 This case illustrates the profound impact a determination of drug quantity by the district court can have on a defendant's sentence. The total marijuana actually seized in the entire three-year investigation comprised less than one kilogram. The district court sentenced Culps as if a jury had convicted him of selling 80 to 100 kilograms of marijuana. As a result, Culps' base offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines increased threefold, from 8 to 24, and the applicable sentencing range rose from 10-16 months to 78-97 months.