Court Opinion

ID: 9487482
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 12:17:31.45925+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:52:17.587928
License: Public Domain

BEEZER, Circuit Judge,
dissenting in part:
The court’s opinion recognizes that the jury determined that Staufer was guilty of possession with intent to distribute lysergic diethamide acid and that Staufer did not prove facts sufficient to sustain an entrapment defense. I concur in parts II through V of the court’s opinion which accepts the jury verdict and affirms the conviction.
I dissent from part I which vacates Staufer’s sentence and holds that Staufer is entitled to a downward departure on the basis of “sentencing entrapment.”
Because the government had nothing to do with the supply side of this drug transaction, Staufer alone is responsible for the drugs he was prepared to deliver. Although I agree that “sentencing entrapment” theoretically provides a legal basis for downward departure, I believe that the nature of this ground is properly defined by United States Sentencing Guidelines § 2D1.1, comment, n. 17. The note permits downward departure only in reverse sting operations. Even then, the sentencing court must find that the government agent “set a price for the controlled substance that was substantially below the market value of the controlled sub-stance_” The district court properly re*1110jected Staufer’s “sentencing entrapment” argument.
The statute, 18 USC § 3553(b), provides that the court shall impose a sentence within the appropriate guideline range unless it finds that there “exists an aggravating or mitigating circumstance of a kind, or to a degree, not adequately taken into consideration by the Sentencing Commission.” Contrary to the conclusion urged in the court’s opinion, the Commission took into account the possibility of “sentencing entrapment” but limited this ground for departure to a particular set of circumstances, namely to reverse stings in which the government acts as the seller rather than the purchaser of a controlled substance. Our precedents acknowledge this fact. See United States v. Barnes, 993 F.2d 680, 684 n. 2. (9th Cir.1993); United States v. Frazier, 985 F.2d 1001, 1003 (9th Cir.1993).
There is a facially appealing symmetry between reverse and “straight” stings. I do not believe, however, that this symmetry warrants our expanding the scope of the “sentencing entrapment” ground beyond the circumstances described in note 17. In any event, this facial symmetry loses its appeal when the relevant policy considerations are taken into account.
First, the negotiated drug purchase is a lawful investigative methodology. To be successful, the negotiations leading to the purchase must credibly reflect marketplace custom. A certain degree of firmness in price and quantity is likely to be expected by all parties involved. Any seller of drugs would likely become wary of a particularly undemanding buyer. As such, our expansion of the “sentencing entrapment” ground for departure may considerably weaken the efficacy of drug investigations.
Regardless of our personal feelings about the efficacy of the current “drug war,” its purpose is to reduce the supply of drugs in the marketplace. In the reverse sting, the government behaves in a manner that is contrary to this policy in order to maximize a particular defendant’s sentence. Significantly, offering drugs for sale at a below market price can be viewed as preying on the weakness of a presumably addicted buyer. This may warrant departure. In a “straight” sting, the government has no real control over the ultimate amount produced. Although the government may urge that the defendant meet its demand, it does so under circumstances where the increased supply will serve only as evidence of guilt. The defendant determines the quantity of drugs entering the marketplace. Unlike the presumably addicted buyer, moreover, the defendant must be presumed to be a rational merchant who factors the cost of being apprehended into the price of the product.
Finally, even if “straight” stings provide a lawful basis for departure, I do not believe that the facts in this case warrant departure. I base this belief on the language of note 17, which requires a finding that the government “set a price for the controlled substance that was substantially below the market value of the controlled substance....” Although the record indicates that the confidential informant increased the negotiated price after Staufer expressed apprehension about meeting the government’s demand, there was no express finding that the transaction priee was set substantially above the market price, contrary to the requirements of note 17.
I would affirm Staufer’s conviction and sentence.