Court Opinion

ID: 9494639
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 15:42:57.053157+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:56:31.848175
License: Public Domain

COX, Circuit Judge,
dissenting, in which BARKETT, Circuit Judge, joins:
I remain convinced that the panel opinion, which the court today reinstates, was *1032wrong for the reasons stated in my dissent from that opinion. See United States v. Blaylock, 249 F.3d 1298, 1303-04 (11th Cir.2001) (Cox, J., dissenting). Because that opinion produces a bad result in this case, and may affect other cases in the appellate pipeline, I respectfully dissent from the en banc court’s order.
The panel opinion allows defendants to be sentenced based on a 100% theoretical yield, despite undisputed evidence that the theoretical yield is not an accurate basis for estimating actual yield. Reinstating that opinion effectively lightens the Government’s burden of proof with regard to defendants sentenced before May 1, 2001, when the precursor amendment to the guidelines became effective. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual Supp. to App. C, Amendment No. 611, pp. 93-113 (2001).1 As a result, these defendants might serve longer prison terms than they would otherwise. That a few defendants may improperly be required to serve a few more years is sufficient, in my view, to make this en banc case one of “exceptional importance.” See Fed. R.App. P. 35(a)(2); 11th Cir. R. 35-3.

. The guidelines amendment concerning precursor chemicals does not render this case unimportant; defendants sentenced prior to May 1, 2001 are not affected by the amendment. See United States v. Steele, 178 F.3d 1230, 1237 (11th Cir. 1999) (applicable version of guidelines is that in effect on date of sentencing hearing).