Opinion ID: 533564
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Conversion

Text: 23 Gerante urges that even assuming (1) the court made a finding that the $68,000 originated from a prior drug transaction; (2) the evidence supported this finding; and (3) the district court was not clearly erroneous in concluding that the drugs purchased with the $68,000 were part of the same course of conduct as the instant offense, the Guidelines nevertheless did not permit the district court to convert the $68,000 into an estimated quantity of cocaine for the purpose of calculating the base offense level. In resolving this issue, we look to the relevant Guidelines provisions. 24 In determining the base offense level in a drug case such as the instant one, the applicable guideline is § 2D1.1, Unlawful Manufacturing, Importing, Exporting, or Trafficking (Including Possession with Intent to Commit These Offenses). Subsection (a)(3) of this section provides that in cases not involving death or serious bodily injury, the base offense level is the level specified in the Drug Quantity Table below. Guideline § 2D1.1(a)(3). The Drug Quantity Table lists various quantities of controlled substances and their corresponding base offense levels. Given this table, the principal task for the district court is to ascertain the appropriate quantity of drugs. Once the court has determined this, it need only refer to the table to find the corresponding base offense level for that quantity. 25 The commentary to Guideline § 2D1.1(a)(3) makes it clear that the court should include all relevant quantities of drugs in its calculation. See Commentary Note 11, Guideline § 2D1.1 (Types and quantities of drugs not specified in the count of conviction may be considered in determining the offense level. See § 1B1.3(a)(2) (Relevant Conduct)). To determine whether any given quantity of drugs is relevant, the court should examine Guideline § 1B1.3(a)(2). That subsection defines relevant conduct 26 solely with respect to offenses of a character for which § 3D1.2(d) would require grouping of multiple counts, [as] all such acts and omissions that were part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction.... 27 Thus, if an offense is one of a character for which § 3D1.2(d) would require grouping of multiple counts, then the defendant's relevant conduct includes all such acts and omissions that were part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction.Turning to § 3D1.2(d), that section states in part that [c]ounts are grouped together if the offense level is determined largely on the basis of ... the quantity of the substance involved.... This subsection specifically includes drug offenses. See id. (mentioning drug offenses such as the instant one). Moreover, the fact that the government alleges only one count does not preclude a court from applying § 1B1.3(a)(2) to a drug offense case. See Background § 1B1.3(a)(2) (the applicability of subsection (a)(2) does not depend upon whether multiple counts are alleged.); United States v. Alfonso Blanco, 888 F.2d 907 (1st Cir.1989) (Guideline § 1B1.3(a)(2)'s cross reference to § 3D1.2(d)'s multiple counts requirement is designed only to pick out a certain subset of crimes, namely the subset of 'fungible item' crimes, such as those involving drugs and money ...) (emphasis supplied). Thus, according to this court and at least six others, the scope of inquiry in drug cases such as the instant one is solely whether quantities and types of drugs not specified in the act of conviction are ... part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction. Background Guideline § 1B1.3(a)(2). See generally, United States v. White, 888 F.2d 490 (7th Cir.1989) (citing cases). But see United States v. Restrepo, 883 F.2d 781, 786 (9th Cir.1989) (quantities not specified in act of conviction may not be used in computing base offense level). 28 Had DEA agents discovered three kilograms of cocaine in Gerante's residence, the above analysis, as well as precedent from at least one other circuit, see Sarasti, 869 F.2d at 807, would support the district court's determination that this quantity of drugs should be considered as a part of Gerante's relevant conduct for the purpose of establishing his base offense level. Instead, DEA agents discovered $68,000 in cash, which the district court found Gerante had received in payment for a quantity of drugs, specifically three kilograms. The issue therefore is whether the Guidelines permitted the district court to treat the money found at Gerante's residence as the equivalent of an estimated quantity of drugs for the purpose of holding Gerante accountable for his relevant conduct under § 1B1.3(a)(2). 29 Fortunately, the Commentary and Application notes to the Guidelines provide specific direction on this issue. Commentary Note 11 to § 2D1.1 states in part that If the amount seized does not reflect the scale of the offense, [then] see Application Note 2 of the Commentary to § 2D1.4. Application Note 2 of the Commentary to § 2D1.4 states that 30 [w]here there is no drug seizure or the amount seized does not reflect the scale of the offense, the sentencing judge shall approximate the quantity of the controlled substance. In making this determination, the judge may consider, for example, the price generally obtained for the controlled substance, financial or other records, similar transactions in controlled substances by the defendant and the size or capability of any laboratory involved. 31 Id. (emphasis added). Applying the above to the present case, we hold that the district court had the authority to determine that the amount seized from the defendant (4.98 kilograms) did not reflect the scale of the offense. Using the price generally obtained for cocaine ($16,000 to $20,000), the district court had authority to (1) estimate the quantity of cocaine that Gerante had exchanged for the money; and (2) hold Gerante accountable for possessing this quantity of cocaine, provided, of course, that this amount of cocaine was part of the same course of conduct as that of the instant offense. See Guideline § 1B1.3(a)(2). 32 Gerante further argues that even if the Guidelines literally allowed the district court to take such action, this court should vacate the sentence based on the equities. An inequitable situation would arise if this court approves of the conversion of money into drugs in such an unprecedented and convoluted manner. 33 We disagree with Gerante's view of the equities. At the time of his arrest, Gerante was only .02 kilograms away from possessing five kilograms, which would have placed him at a base offense level of 32 (the level the district court ultimately concluded was appropriate). The district court's conversion of the $68,000 into an estimated quantity of cocaine in order to place Gerante at a base offense level of 32 was scarcely unreasonable or unfair. 34 We are warned that if one takes the district court's ruling to its logical extreme, future cases may involve the conversion of cars, houses, and other items into quantities ... of drugs for the purpose of determining a defendant's relevant conduct. We need not address the appropriateness of such speculative and remote scenarios, as they are not before us. We hold only that it was fully consistent with the Guidelines to convert the instant drug money into estimated drug quantities. D. Minor Participant 35 Gerante contends that the district court never determined whether defendant's sentence should be reduced because he was a minor participant. We disagree. The transcript indicates that the district court listened to Gerante's arguments but accepted the government's total offense level. We find that the court implicitly rejected defendant's argument when it ruled that it was accepting the government's total offense level.