Opinion ID: 660690
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: relevant conduct enhancement

Text: 11 At the time of defendant's arrest, the police confiscated 802 marijuana plants, 300 grams of loose marijuana, and 40 grams of seeds. Zimmer also admitted to having grown marijuana for the last seven or eight years. Based on this evidence of past conduct, the District Court made a finding that the defendant had produced an absolute minimum of 200 plants over the last eight years. The court then added this 200 plant determination to the 800 seized plants as relevant conduct. The District Court stated, in part: 12 There is no way on this green earth that a person who is capable of this kind of sophistication could have failed to produce at least two hundred plants over the course of eight years of trying in the past. It's only 20--what is it--25 plants in the course of a year. 13 (Sent.Tr. at 37). Pursuant to this finding, the District Court increased Zimmer's base offense level from 30 to 32. 2 The issue faced here is whether there was sufficient factual support for the District Court's finding that the defendant had grown 200 plants over the past eight years. The factual findings of the District Court are subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review. United States v. Walton, 908 F.2d 1289, 1301 (6th Cir.1990); United States v. Barrett, 890 F.2d 855, 867 (6th Cir.1989). 14 U.S.S.G. Sec. 1B1.3(a)(2) provides that the base offense level shall be determined on the basis of ... all acts and omissions ... that were part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction. Proof of relevant conduct must be supported by some minimal indicium of reliability beyond mere allegation. United States v. Smith, 887 F.2d 104, 108 (6th Cir.1989) (citation omitted). The government must prove the quantity of drugs by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Sims, 975 F.2d 1225, 1242 (6th Cir.1992), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 1315, 122 L.Ed.2d 702 (1993). If the amount cannot be easily determined, it is the duty of the District Court to estimate the amount. Walton, 908 F.2d at 1300-02. The Walton test is whether the defendant is more likely than not actually responsible for a quantity greater than or equal to the quantity for which [he] is being held responsible. Id. at 1302 (emphasis in original). Moreover, the court's estimate must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. The District Court is not free to estimate the highest number possible; it must be cautious so as not to violate the due process rights of the defendant. Id. (citations omitted). 15 The court's determination that the defendant grew an additional 200 plants is not supported anywhere in the record. The District Court may not create a quantity when there is absolutely no evidence to support that amount. An estimate can suffice, but a preponderance of the evidence must support the estimate. Walton, 908 F.2d at 1302. The government argues that the 25 plants per year number is low considering the 800 plants that were actually seized. This argument ignores the unrefuted evidence that the defendant had only recently started his indoor operation. The information and equipment seized in the case clearly demonstrates that the sophisticated indoor growing operation was but a few months old. Thus, the size of defendant's operation at the time of arrest cannot be manipulated to infer a certain amount of past success (25 plants per year) when there exists not a scintilla of evidence to support such a finding. That the defendant grew marijuana during the years prior to his arrest is not in question; he admitted as much. The amount attributed to him by the District Court, however, was created from whole cloth. It is improper and a violation of Walton to simply guess. The relevant conduct enhancement is therefore reversed and the District Court is directed to resentence defendant based on the actual amount of marijuana seized. 3