Opinion ID: 761049
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Amount of Methamphetamine Attributed to Ellick at Sentencing

Text: 40 Ellick argues that he was improperly sentenced for the five pounds of methamphetamine seized from Harper and Lee as well as the one pound seized at Young's residence. The sentencing judge calculated Ellick's sentence based on a quantity of at least 2.704 net kilograms of methamphetamine, Sent. Tr. at 7, or approximately six pounds. This was the same quantity indicated in the presentence report. 41 We review a district court's drug quantity calculation for clear error. [W]e will not disturb it unless it has no support in the record, or unless after reviewing all the evidence we are firmly convinced that an error has been made. United States v. Edwards, 69 F.3d 419, 438 (10th Cir.1991). In a drug conspiracy case, a district court calculates a defendant's base sentence level using not only the quantity with which he personally dealt, but also any amounts which he reasonably foresaw or which fell within the scope of his particular agreement with the conspirators. United States v. Ivy, 83 F.3d 1266, 1289 (10th Cir.1996). The government bears the burden of showing this quantity by a preponderance of the evidence, using evidence with at least a minimum indicia of reliability. United States v. Cruz Camacho, 137 F.3d 1220, 1225 (10th Cir.1998). 42 The evidence supports Ellick's sentence. Baxter Jones testified at trial that Ellick was to have received part of the methamphetamine seized from Harper and Lee. In addition, there was extensive evidence that Ellick had distributed drugs obtained from Lee, including Ellick's own statements. The presentence report indicates that Ellick provided money for both packages of seized drugs. It also indicates that shortly after the arrests at Young's residence, Young telephoned Ellick's residence and spoke with his wife about the pound of methamphetamine seized. Ellick offered no witnesses or evidence at sentencing, and he has given us no reason to conclude that the government's evidence was not sufficiently reliable.