Opinion ID: 763759
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Determination of Controlled Substance

Text: 222 At sentencing, the district court concluded that Burgos was responsible for distributing at least 50 kilograms of cocaine and/or cocaine base. Burgos argues that the court erred in calculating his drug quantity on the basis of crack cocaine because there was insufficient proof that the form of cocaine base attributed to him was in fact crack, that is, he claims not all forms of cocaine base are crack. In particular, Burgos asserts that the government offered no scientific evidence that the substance was manufactured with sodium bicarbonate that he alleges is needed to make crack cocaine. For these reasons, he claims that his sentence should be remanded and determined solely on the basis of powder cocaine which carries a lower offense level under the Guidelines. Since this issue was not presented below, we review for plain error. 223 Section 2D1.1 is the operative section of the Guidelines for drug offenses involving cocaine base and cocaine. This section provides that  '[c]rack' is the street name for a form of cocaine base, usually prepared by processing cocaine hydrochloride and sodium bicarbonate, and usually appearing in a lumpy, rocklike form. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c), Note (D). In drafting this definition, the Sentencing Commission explained that forms of cocaine base other than crack ... will be treated as cocaine. U.S.S.G. app. C, amend. 487 (effective Nov. 1, 1993). 224 We conclude that the district court correctly sentenced Burgos based on a finding that the cocaine attributed to him was crack. First, in his PSR objection letter, Burgos failed to challenge the PSR's determination that he was responsible for distributing cocaine base at Yale Street. Rather, he objected to the PSR's drug quantity calculation in the event that Congress decides to equalize the penalties between amounts of cocaine and cocaine base. Second, Burgos did not object at sentencing to the court's reference to drugs distributed at the Yale Street drug block as crack. Third, the evidence presented at trial clearly established that the drug block distributed crack. For instance, Burgos' primary drug bagger Cyr testified that the Yale Street operation sold crack and he typically manufactured it with Morales. Finally, we conclude that in proving a substance is crack, the government is not required to show that the cocaine was processed with sodium bicarbonate. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c), Note D; see also United States v. Abdul, 122 F.3d 477, 479 (7th Cir.1997) ([W]hile crack might generally be produced using sodium bicarbonate, production with sodium bicarbonate is not the exclusive preparation method recognized for purposes of § 2D1.1(c).). 225