Opinion ID: 2978565
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Conversion of cocaine base and powder

Text: Fenderson next asserts that the district court erred when it converted the mixture of cocaine base and powder using the conversion factor found in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c). Specifically, Fenderson asserts that there is “no logical, scientific, or legal justification” for the distinctions made in this conversion table. The Court finds this argument unpersuasive. In support of his argument, Fenderson relies upon the holding in Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007). In Kimbrough, the Supreme Court held “it would not be an abuse of discretion for a district court to conclude when sentencing a particular defendant that the crack/powder disparity yields a sentence ‘greater than necessary’ to achieve § 3553(a)’s purposes[.]” Id. at 110. The Court went on to note that, “as a general matter, courts may vary [from Guidelines ranges] based solely on policy considerations, including disagreements with the Guidelines.” Id. at 101 (internal quotation marks omitted). Furthermore, this Court has recently held that a district court may vary from the Guidelines based upon a policy disagreement, beyond even the crack/powder disparity. See United States v. Herrera-Zuniga, 571 F.3d 568, 583-84 (6th Cir. 2009). Fenderson appears to argue that Kimbrough and its progeny should be used to abrogate in its entirety the conversion table in § 2D1.1(c). After pronouncing sentence, the sentencing judge, as required by United States v. Bostic, 371 F.3d 865, 872 (6th Cir. 2004), asked the parties whether they had “any objections to the sentence just pronounced that have not been previously raised?” Fenderson made no argument regarding the use of the conversion table prior to this question or after it. Accordingly, Fenderson has forfeited the argument on appeal and we review it only for plain error. -6- No. 07-4482 United States v. Fenderson “Plain error is defined as an egregious error, one that directly leads to a miscarriage of justice.” United States v. Busacca, 863 F.2d 433, 435 (6th Cir. 1988). Plain error occurs when “(1) there was an error, (2) that is clear and obvious, and (3) that affects substantial legal rights” and 4) where that error “seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Angel, 355 F.3d 462, 469-70 (6th Cir. 2004). Fenderson has failed to establish that the district court committed error when it used the conversion table in § 2D1.1(c). There is no indication from the record that the district court was unaware of its authority to vary based upon a disagreement with the guidelines as they relate to cocaine base. Fenderson, therefore, can establish no error in that regard. Instead, Fenderson argues that the conversion table contains an arbitrary multiplier. Specifically, Fenderson takes issue with the fact that cocaine base is converted at different ratios depending upon the total amount of cocaine base at issue. This decision is explained by the background note to the conversion table which indicates as follows: The base offense levels in § 2D1.1 are either provided directly by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 or are proportional to the levels established by statute, and apply to all unlawful trafficking. Levels 32 and 26 in the Drug Quantity Table are the distinctions provided by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act; however, further refinement of drug amounts is essential to provide a logical sentencing structure for drug offenses. To determine these finer distinctions, the Commission consulted numerous experts and practitioners, including authorities at the Drug Enforcement Administration, chemists, attorneys, probation officers, and members of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces, who also advocate the necessity of these distinctions. Where necessary, this scheme has been modified in response to specific congressional directives to the Commission. -7- No. 07-4482 United States v. Fenderson U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c), background note. As the distinction in conversion rates was arrived at through appropriate means and reliance upon experts in the field, this Court cannot say that the district court committed plain error in utilizing the conversion rates.