Court Opinion

ID: 2964469
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:26:10.687434+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:56.695259
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1808

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                 CHRISTOPHER N. SIA,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                       [Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge]
                                          ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Cyr, Stahl and Lynch,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Donald Thomas Bergerson on brief for appellant.
            _______________________
            Jay P. McCloskey,  United States  Attorney, and  F. Mark  Terison,
            ________________                                 ________________
        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                  December 18, 1996
                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.  Defendant  Christopher Sia appeals from the
                 __________

            denial of  his  motion for  reduction  of sentence  under  18

            U.S.C.    3582(c)(2).  For the reasons that follow, we vacate

            and remand for further proceedings.

                                          I.

                 The   background  need   only   be  briefly   recounted.

            Defendant  pled guilty to four  drug charges in  1991 and was

            sentenced to 293 months in prison.  The offenses involved LSD

            appearing  both   on  blotter  paper  and   in  liquid  form.

            Thereafter, the Sentencing  Commission retroactively  revised

            the methodology  for  calculating the  weight  of LSD.    See
                                                                      ___

            U.S.S.G. App. C (Amendment 488) (amending   2D1.1) (effective

            November 1, 1993).   At the  recommendation of the  Probation

            Office,   the  district   court   undertook   a  sua   sponte
                                                             ____________

            reconsideration  of  defendant's  sentence  in light  of  the

            amendment  (as it did in over a  dozen other LSD cases in the

            district).  

                 Applying the new formula to the blotter LSD, but deeming

            it  inapplicable  to the  liquid LSD,  the court  reduced the

            amount of "heroin equivalent"  attributable to defendant from

            99  kilograms to  50 kilograms.   Even  with such  reduction,

            however, defendant remained subject to the same offense level

            (of   38)  and   the   same  sentencing   range  as   before.

            Accordingly,  on  November  12,  1993,  without  filings from

            defendant, the court issued  an amended judgment finding that

                                         -2-

            "the term  of incarceration  imposed herein is  unaffected by

            the change in the  law."  Defendant through counsel  filed an

            appeal  but  then  had  second  thoughts;  counsel  moved  to

            withdraw and the appeal was dismissed in May 1994.

                 In May 1996,  defendant filed the instant  pro se motion

            for reduction,  contending in  a lengthy memo  that Amendment

            488 did  in fact  apply  to the  liquid LSD  as  well as  the

            blotter  LSD.  The  government filed  an opposition,  and the

            district court denied the  motion in a margin order  stating:

            "After  full review  of the  written submissions  hereon, the

            within  motion  is  hereby  denied."    Defendant,  with  new

            counsel, filed a timely appeal.

                                         II.

                 We do not understand the government here to be seriously

            contending that Amendment 488  is inapplicable to liquid LSD.

            The sole  reference to  liquid LSD  in the amendment  implies

            otherwise.1    All  courts  to address  the  issue,  although
                      1

            differing over the precise  methodology to be employed, agree

            that the full  weight of the  liquid LSD is  no longer to  be

            included in  calculating drug quantities.   See, e.g., United
                                                        ___  ____  ______

            States  v. Ingram, 67 F.3d 126 (6th Cir. 1995); United States
            ______     ______                               _____________

                                
            ____________________

               1  See  U.S.S.G.   2D1.1 n.16 ("In the  case of liquid LSD
               1  ___
            (LSD that has not  been placed onto a carrier  medium), using
                                                                    _____
            the  weight of the LSD  alone to calculate  the offense level
            _____________________________________________________________
            may not  adequately reflect  the seriousness of  the offense.
            In such  a  case, an  upward  departure may  be  warranted.")
            (emphasis added).

                                         -3-

            v.  Turner, 59  F.3d 481  (4th Cir.  1995); United  States v.
                ______                                  ______________

            Jordan, 842  F. Supp.  1031  (M.D. Tenn.  1994).   And  in  a
            ______

            separate  appeal from  Maine  involving the  same  government

            appellee, this court remanded  for resentencing based on "the

            government's concession  that the weight of  the 'liquid LSD'

            should have  been recalculated" in accordance  with Amendment

            488;   we  there   agreed  that   "the  commentary   arguably

            contemplates some adjustment  where liquid LSD is  involved."

            United States v. Lowden, 36 F.3d 1090, 1994  WL 497586, at *1
            _____________    ______

            (1st Cir. 1994) (table) (per curiam).2
                                                 2

                 Instead,  the  government interposes  various procedural

            objections  that,  in  its  view,  foreclose  defendant  from

            seeking such  relief at  this  juncture.   It first  contends

            that, just as in the habeas context, a defendant is precluded

            from  filing  a  "successive"  or "repetitive"     3582(c)(2)

            motion except under  narrow circumstances.   Yet even on  the

            assumption that  defendant's earlier appeal  from the court's

            sua sponte  order constituted such  a motion, the  analogy is
            __________

            strained.  A  habeas petition is  governed by specific  rules

                                
            ____________________

               2    As it  did below,  the  government only  intimates on
               2
            appeal that the  amendment might be  inapplicable--suggesting
            that the Probation  Office did not earlier  apply the revised
            formula to liquid LSD because the drug was not "on" a carrier
            medium  "as required  by the amendment"  but rather  "in" it.
            Yet  the amended  commentary  uses the  words  "on" and  "in"
            interchangeably.   And the  amendment's definition of  liquid
            LSD as "LSD that has not been placed  onto a carrier medium,"
            see  note 1 supra, indicates that the liquid solvent does not
            ___         _____
            constitute a carrier medium.   See, e.g., Ingram, 67  F.3d at
                                           ___  ____  ______
            128; Turner, 59 F.3d at 485.
                 ______

                                         -4-

            restricting multiple  filings; a   3582(c)(2)  motion is not.

            See, e.g., United States  v. Hollenbeck, 932 F. Supp.  53, 56
            ___  ____  _____________     __________

            (N.D.N.Y.  1996).   And  the  concerns  giving rise  to  such

            constraints in the  habeas context are  implicated here to  a

            far  lesser extent.   Instead,  a motion  under    3582(c)(2)

            would appear more  akin to  one under the  former version  of

            Fed.  R. Crim.  P. 35.    And it  was agreed  that successive

            motions were permissible under that rule.   See, e.g., Heflin
                                                        ___  ____  ______

            v. United States,  358 U.S.  415, 418 n.7  (1959); Ekberg  v.
               _____________                                   ______

            United States, 167 F.2d 380, 384 (1st Cir. 1948).3
                                                             3
            _____________

                 The  government also insists that defendant, having pled

            guilty to an indictment charging distribution of at least ten

            grams  of LSD and having stipulated to a heroin equivalent of

            99 kilograms  for sentencing  purposes, cannot now  renege on

            such agreements.  Yet the indictment and the stipulation were

            both  based  upon  a  "mixture  or  substance"  containing  a

            detectable amount  of LSD--a methodology  later discarded  by

            Amendment 488.  Our  decision in United States v.  Lindia, 82
                                             _____________     ______

            F.3d  1154, 1159 n.3 (1st Cir. 1996), on which the government

            relies, does not dictate that such stipulated drug quantities

            were  immune  from  later   modification  resulting  from  an

                                
            ____________________

               3    Neither  below  nor  on  appeal  has  the  government
               3
            contended that  this court's dismissal of  the earlier appeal
            constitutes  the law  of  the case  binding  on the  district
            court.   The matter is therefore waived.  See, e.g., Castillo
                                                      ___  ____  ________
            v. United States, 34 F.3d 443, 445 (7th Cir. 1994).  We would
               _____________
            be inclined  not to rely on  the doctrine in any  event.  See
                                                                      ___
            note 4 infra.
                   _____

                                         -5-

            intervening amendment.  Indeed, under  the government's view,

            the district  court would  have been precluded  from reducing

            the quantity of  drugs attributable to defendant  in the 1993

            amended judgment.

                 In  the alternative,  the government  contends  that the

            district  court properly denied the motion  as an exercise of

            discretion.  To  be sure, given  the discretion entrusted  to

            the lower  court in this context,  "most resentencing battles

            will  be  won  or  lost in  the  district  court,  not  in an

            appellate venue."   United States v.  LaBonte, 70 F.3d  1396,
                                _____________     _______

            1411  (1st Cir. 1995), cert. granted, 116 S. Ct. 2545 (1996).
                                   _____________

            Yet the court here  seemingly denied the motion based  on one

            or more of  the arguments advanced  by the government  below.

            As a result, it is possible  that the district court may have

            misapprehended that Amendment 488 was  inapplicable to liquid

            LSD (a misapprehension shared by this court, we might add, at

            the time  of  defendant's earlier  appeal).   It is  likewise

            possible that  the lower  court denied  relief  based on  the

            mistaken  notion  that  defendant's  request  constituted  an

            impermissible "successive"  motion.4   Given  these  possible
                                               4

                                
            ____________________

               4   It is also  conceivable (despite the lack  of any such
               4
            contention  from the  government) that  the lower  court felt
            itself bound by this  court's earlier decision on law  of the
            case grounds--a rationale with which it would be difficult to
            quarrel.  Even if  so, that doctrine only "directs  a court's
            discretion[;]  it  does  not  limit  the  tribunal's  power."
            Arizona v. California, 460  U.S. 605, 618 (1983).   And under
            _______    __________
            the  circumstances presented--particularly  the clarification
            of  the law  in the  wake of  defendant's  earlier appeal--we

                                         -6-

            misapprehensions, urged by the government, the district court

            might  choose  now to  do something  different.   We  think a

            remand is appropriate and vacate the sentence.

                 As a  final argument,  the government suggests  that the

            lower court calculated the revised sentencing range under the

            amendment, determined that an  upward departure to 293 months

            would be warranted, and then denied the motion simply because

            defendant was  already  at that  level.   Yet the  government

            mentioned  the possibility  of  an upward  departure only  in

            passing below, and there  is no indication that  the district

            court engaged in  any such undertaking.  Given  the magnitude

            of  any   possible  such   departure  here  (if   defendant's

            calculations bear out, he will be subject to an offense level

            of 32, with  a range of 121 to 151  months), the government's

            conjecture  on  the  ambiguous  record  before  us  does  not

            suffice.   At  the  same time,  we  note that  Amendment  488

            encourages  an upward departure  in cases of  liquid LSD, and

            the court remains free to take such action on remand.

                 In  deciding   whether  a   reduction  of  sentence   is

            warranted, and  if  so to  what  extent, the  district  court

            should first calculate the revised sentencing range under the

            amendment.  This inquiry will require ascertaining either the

            weight of "pure" LSD  dissolved in the liquid solvent  or the

            number  of dosage  units  contained therein.   Defendant  has

                                
            ____________________

            thinkit would be inappropriate to invoke that doctrine here. 

                                         -7-

            proffered a figure for the weight of pure LSD, one apparently

            drawn  from government laboratory  reports; as  those reports

            are  not in  the  record, that  figure  cannot be  confirmed.

            Alternatively,  he notes that the original presentence report

            attributed a  total of  7500 dosage units  to 419 of  the 485

            grams of liquid LSD for which  he was responsible.  By way of

            extrapolation, and  on the  assumption that the  remaining 66

            grams were of comparable strength, he derives  a total number

            of  dosage  units  (8,680)  for  the  full  485  grams.    If

            defendant's factual assumptions prove valid, the court  might

            be  persuaded  to adopt  such  an  approach.   Alternatively,

            additional evidence may be received.   We leave these matters

            for resolution by the district court in the first instance.5
                                                                       5

                 Vacated and remanded for  further proceedings.  See Loc.
                 ________________________________________________________

            R. 27.1.
            ________

                                
            ____________________

               5  We  express no view as to whether  the number of dosage
               5
            units should be multiplied by 0.05 mg (the presumptive weight
            of  pure LSD per dose), see Turner,  59 F.3d at 485-91, or by
                                    ___ ______
            0.4 mg  (the amendment's  conversion factor), see  Ingram, 67
                                                          ___  ______
            F.3d  at 128.   Indeed,  it may  prove unnecessary  to choose
            between these competing approaches in the instant case.

                                         -8-