Opinion ID: 148062
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Auger’s First Appeal

Text: Auger allowed others use land he leased to grow marijuana. When the marijuana growing operation was discovered, law enforcement agents executed a search warrant at Auger’s property and seized the marijuana plants growing there. At Auger’s original sentencing, the government presented testimony of Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) Special Agent Stephen Tinsley, who inspected the seized plants three days after they were collected and counted. Tinsley testified that many of the plants he saw were “seedlings” in plastic trays, but that the reported 8,664-plant count appeared accurate within 1,000 plants. Based on Tinsley’s testimony, the district court found that 8,664 plants were seized. This Court vacated Auger’s sentence and remanded for further fact finding as to the number of seedlings seized on Auger’s property and whether those seedlings were “plants,” within the meaning of U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c). United States 2 v. Auger, 338 F. App’x 823 (11th Cir. 2009). The commentary to § 2D1.1(c) defines a “plant” as “an organism having leaves and a readily observable root formation (e.g., a marihuana cutting having roots, a rootball, or root hairs is a marihuana plant).” U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) cmt. n.17. We explained that, because Auger objected to the statement in the Presentence Investigation Report (“PSI”) that 8,664 plants were seized on Auger’s property, the government was required to produce evidence that the 8,664 plants seized had observable root formation. Agent Tinsley had not testified as to whether the “seedlings” he saw had observable root formation. Auger, 339 F. App’x at 831.