Opinion ID: 689619
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Wirgau

Text: 7 At sentencing, the District Court held Wirgau responsible for the one ounce and one half pound of methamphetamine discussed on May 2, for the additional one ounce of methamphetamine offered for sale on May 5, 1 and for the drugs he possessed at the time of his arrest. On appeal, Wirgau contends that the District Court erred in calculating the quantity of drugs for which he can be held responsible. 8 In support of his contention, Wirgau first argues that the District Court did not address the scope of the activity he agreed to undertake with respect to the conspiracy. In calculating the sentencing guideline range applicable to a particular defendant in the case of jointly undertaken criminal activity, a district court is to consider all reasonably foreseeable acts and omissions of others in furtherance of the jointly undertaken criminal activity. U.S.S.G. Sec. 1B1.3(a)(1)(B). Here, Wirgau was personally involved with all the drug quantities for which he was held responsible. Thus, there was no need for the sentencing court to make explicit findings as to whether Wirgau could reasonably foresee these acts. 9 Wirgau next argues that the District Court should not have found him responsible for the one half pound of methamphetamine discussed on May 2. According to Wirgau, he was not part of that discussion and had no knowledge of the one half pound. It is the sentencing judge [who] had the prerogative to make a determination of the quantity of drugs involved in the scheme and to sentence accordingly. United States v. Moreno, 899 F.2d 465, 473 (6th Cir.1990). A district court's finding on quantity is governed by a preponderance of the evidence standard. Id. 10 In response to Wirgau's written objection to the presentence report (PSR), and in response to the same objection at the sentencing hearing, the probation officer responsible for preparing the PSR stated that Wirgau had admitted responsibility to her for the one half pound of methamphetamine. After reviewing the evidence, the District Court found that the discussion regarding the one half pound did occur and that Wirgau participated in the conversation. 11 Wirgau first attacks this finding by pointing out that the one half pound is an abnormally large quantity of methamphetamine compared to the other quantities he possessed. He also argues that the confidential informant was not reliable for a variety of reasons. Both of these argument were presented to the District Court, which weighed the arguments and concluded that the quantities found were supported by a preponderance of the evidence. We cannot say that conclusion is clearly erroneous. 12 Wirgau next attacks the District Court's findings by arguing that the sale of one half pound never took place. This argument is irrelevant. It is clear from the context of the conversation on May 2 that McDonald and Wirgau were willing and able to procure and sell this quantity of methamphetamine. That is all the law requires.