Opinion ID: 204046
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Calculating Drug Quantity

Text: Under the sentencing guidelines, the base offense level largely depends upon the total drug quantities involved in the offense. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c). If the quantity of drugs seized does not accurately reflect the scale of a drug-distribution conspiracy, the district court must approximate the [total] quantity of the controlled substance. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, cmt. n. 12. Because Correa-Alicea was convicted of conspiring to distribute controlled substances, he is responsible not only for the drugs he actually handled but also for the full amount of drugs that he could reasonably have anticipated would be within the ambit of the conspiracy. United States v. Santos, 357 F.3d 136, 140 (1st Cir.2004). A district court's finding as to drug quantity need only be by a preponderance of the evidence and is not required to be an exact determination but rather only a reasoned estimate. Rodríguez, 525 F.3d at 107; see also United States v. Laboy, 351 F.3d 578, 584 (1st Cir.2003) (holding that when it is impossible or impractical to obtain an exact drug quantity for sentencing purposes, a reasoned estimate will suffice). The sentencing court has broad discretion in determining which data are sufficiently dependable for sentencing purposes. United States v. Rivera-Maldonado, 194 F.3d 224, 228 n. 2 (1st Cir.1999). Although the court may rely on reasonable estimates and averages to reach its drug-quantity determination, those estimates must possess adequate indicia of reliability and demonstrable record support. Id. at 228. We cannot uphold a drug quantity calculation on the basis of hunch or intuition. United States v. Marrero-Ortiz, 160 F.3d 768, 780 (1st Cir. 1998). We review the district court's factual finding as to drug quantity for clear error. Rodríguez, 525 F.3d at 107. In reviewing the court's drug-quantity finding, our task is to determine whether the government presented sufficient reliable information to permit the court reasonably to conclude that [Correa-Alicia was] responsible for a quantity of drugs at least equal to the quantity threshold for the assigned base offense level. United States v. Barnett, 989 F.2d 546, 553 (1st Cir.1993); see also United States v. Pizarro-Berríos, 448 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir.2006) (holding that if a district court makes an erroneous factual finding under the sentencing guidelines, yet there is enough evidence to support the alternative explanation for the court's finding, the error would be harmless and there would be no reason to remand to the district court when the result will be the same.).