Opinion ID: 777584
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: reliable evidence of quantity

Text: 35 Buckland was arrested on three separate occasions: December 7, 1993; February 16, 1994; and February 24, 1994. Each occasion became the basis of a possession with intent to distribute count in the indictment and the core of the conspiracy allegation. The jury convicted him as charged. The Presentence Report, unchallenged in this respect, reflects that on December 7, 1993, he had in his possession 449 grams of methamphetamine, on February 16, 1994, he had 200 grams, and on February 24, 1994, an additional 100 grams. The total of these amounts alone-over 700 grams-exceeds the 500 gram trigger that produces a statutory maximum of life. 3 Not only did Buckland fail to register an objection to these amounts, but in his formal Objections to the Presentence Report and Government's Sentencing Memorandum dated April 29, 1999, and prepared for Buckland's third sentencing hearing, his counsel Mr. Obertz wrote, Even assuming appropriate composition [of the various amounts claimed by his accomplices], the defendant asserts the appropriate guidelines calculation would be level 32 i.e. 1-3 kilograms of methamphetamine. (emphasis added). Furthermore, the district court asked Buckland's attorneys at the beginning of each of the three sentencing hearings if they wanted an evidentiary hearing, and each time the response was in the negative. 36 As we said in United States v. Romero-Rendon, [t]he Sentencing Guidelines allow judges to rely at sentencing on any information ... so long as it has sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy. 220 F.3d 1159, 1161-62 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1043, 121 S.Ct. 640, 148 L.Ed.2d 546 (2000) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). We find such reliable indicia in this record. One kilogram of methamphetamine, of course, equals 1000 grams, twice the amount required under § 841(b)(1)(A)(viii) to make Buckland eligible for a life sentence. 37 Thus, whether we look only at the unchallenged amount of methamphetamine taken from Buckland by the authorities, or only at the amount conceded by his attorney with respect to the testimony of the accomplice witnesses, it appears beyond all doubt that the Apprendi error in this case did not affect the outcome of the proceedings, and, accordingly, did not affect Buckland's substantial rights.