Court Opinion

ID: 9483017
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 09:07:52.860386+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:49:21.582456
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
May 12, 1992.
PER CURIAM:
We make clear at the outset that this Court is divided on the following two issues crucial to the determination of Lopez-Gil’s sentence: 1) as raised by Judge Brown’s dissenting opinion, whether the net weight of the suitcases should have been used in calculating Lopez-Gil’s sentence; and 2) as raised by the Government’s petition for panel rehearing, whether the controlled substance should have been classified as “cocaine” or “cocaine base” for sentencing purposes.
1) The Suitcase Issue
With respect to issue one, “the suitcase issue,” Lopez-Gil failed to request a rehearing, from either the panel or from the court en banc. Nevertheless, First Circuit rules permit its Judges or the panel to request a vote on whether to rehear a *1134decision en banc. Because a majority of the Judges declined to rehear en banc “the suitcase issue,” Judge Brown respectfully dissents.† The district court included the net weight of the suitcases in its calculation of Lopez-Gil’s sentence. Judge Brown is of the conviction that the weight of foreign materials, such as fiberglass suitcase material, should not be counted for sentencing purposes unless they are usable and consumable.
2) Cocaine Base or Cocaine?
On the second issue, the Government filed a Petition for Panel Rehearing, which the panel now addresses. The sole question on rehearing is whether Lopez-Gil’s sentence should be computed by classifying the controlled substance as “cocaine” or “cocaine base.” We held on appeal that the district court erred in using cocaine base as the standard for sentencing.2 We GRANT the Government’s Petition for Panel Rehearing and REMAND to the district court to specifically find whether the controlled substance was in fact cocaine or cocaine base.
Lopez-Gil was convicted by a jury of 1) possession, with intent to distribute, of approximately 14 kilograms of cocaine; 2) of importation of cocaine into the United States; and 3) of possession of cocaine on board an aircraft. The district court sentenced Lopez-Gil under Offense Level 40 to concurrent sentences of 292 months of confinement and five years of supervised release as to each of the two counts. This sentence was based upon the court’s conclusion that the controlled substance was cocaine base. We modified the sentence on appeal, holding that the term “cocaine base” means only crack cocaine. Based upon this legal determination, we found that since the expert testimony at the sentencing phase showed that the controlled substance clearly was not crack, the substance should have been classified instead as cocaine and not “cocaine base.” Under our modification, based on our determination that the substance was cocaine, Lopez-Gil faced concurrent sentences of only 121 months of confinement as to each count under Offense Level 32. This resulted in a striking 18-year reduction in Lopez-Gil’s sentence.
The controversy surrounding the classification of the controlled substance centers on DEA Chemist Vallejo’s testimony at the sentencing phase of the trial. After performing a chemical analysis, Vallejo testified at trial that she found “cocaine as the base.” During the pre-sentencing hearing, Vallejo also testified that the cocaine base was not crack:
Q Miss Vallejo, you were the person that analyzed the narcotic drug found in the luggage?
A Yes, sir.
Q And in the report that you submitted at the time of the trial you stated there that it was cocaine base, is that correct?
A Yes....
Q Miss Vallejo, was the cocaine base found in the luggage crack?
A No, it was in the state it was received, no. It was not crack.
Q Most or some of the analysis made of cocaine base could be crack?
A Yes.
Q And in this case it was not?
A No.
The Court: It was not crack?
A It was not crack.
We reiterate that neither the statute, 21 U.S.C. § 841(b), nor the Sentencing Guidelines define the term “cocaine base.” The legislative history of the statute shows that Congress meant “cocaine freebase” when using the term “cocaine base.” Although we continue to believe that Congress indeed was concerned primarily with the crack epidemic in enacting the legislation, the Government now persuades us that it does not necessarily follow that the term “cocaine base” includes only crack cocaine.
Judges have much to learn about various drug forms and their new technologies, which are most certainly developing everyday. The fact that we are not aware of the *1135existence of a new derivative form of cocaine base that is separate and distinct from crack, does not mean that there is no such substance. District judges are forced to rely on the expert testimony of chemists who specialize in drug analysis in order to determine the identity of a substance.
In this instance, Chemist Vallejo clearly testified that although the substance was not crack, it was indeed cocaine base. This convincing testimony formed the basis for the district court’s sentence. Because the court did not specifically find that the controlled substance was cocaine base, however, we remand this issue to the district court to make the appropriate finding.
Accordingly, (1) we GRANT the Government’s Petition for Panel Reconsideration only with respect to Part 2 published at 1129; (2) WITHDRAW Part 2 of this opinion; and (3) REMAND this issue to the district court for further findings.3

 Because Judge Brown sits only by designation, he, of course, is without power to either request or cast a vote for en banc review, and clearly could never participate in the en banc decision.

. U.S. v. Lopez-Gil, 965 F.2d 1124 (1st Cir.1992).

. Because Judge Brown concurs fully in the decision to grant the Government’s Petition for Panel Rehearing and in its determination that this issue should be remanded in order for the district court to find whether the substance was cocaine or cocaine base, his dissent solely with respect to this issue is also WITHDRAWN.