Court Opinion

ID: 2965070
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:34:51.199908+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:43:04.996415
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            United States Court of Appeals
                                For the First Circuit
                                 ____________________

          No. 97-1468

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                   MANUEL VALERIO,

                                Defendant - Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

                    [Hon. Ronald R. Lagueux, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Boudin, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________

                            Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                    ____________________

                        and Dowd, Jr.,* Senior District Judge.
                                        _____________________

                                _____________________

               Randy Olen,  with whom  John M. Cicilline  was on  brief for
               __________              _________________
          appellant.
               Margaret E.  Curran, Assistant United States  Attorney, with
               ___________________
          whom Sheldon Whitehouse,  United States Attorney, and  Kenneth P.
               __________________                                __________
          Madden,  Assistant  United  States Attorney,  were  on  brief for
          ______
          appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                   January 26, 1998
                                 ____________________

                              
          ____________________

          *  Of the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.

                    DOWD, Senior District Judge.   The sole issue raised by
                    DOWD, Senior District Judge.
                          _____________________

          this  appeal of  the  defendant's sentence,  based on  his guilty

          plea,  is  whether the  defendant  was entitled  to  have cocaine

          base(crack)  separated  from  the  cocaine  powder,  as  packaged

          together in three containers. The defendant asserted that the two

          forms of cocaine should have been  separated prior to calculating

          the offense level.   The sentencing court disagreed  and we agree

          with the sentencing court and thus affirm.

                    The  defendant  was  charged   in  an  indictment  with

          possession  with intent  to deliver  cocaine in  violation of  21

          U.S.C.   841(a)(1).   He entered a plea of  guilty.  On June  28,

          1996, Providence Rhode  Island police officers executed  a search

          warrant at  the  defendant s home  and  seized three  bags,  each

          containing cocaine powder and  cocaine base.  The total  combined

          weight of powder and cocaine base was 123.4 grams.  Additionally,

          the  police discovered a separate container containing 7.43 grams

          of crack cocaine.1  
                              
          ____________________

          1  The  defendant entered his plea of guilty on December 6, 1996.
          The United States  Attorney recited the factual basis  in part as
          follows:

                    . . . that on June 28, 1996, at approximately
                    6:00   p.m.,   Providence   police   officers
                    executed a search  warrant at  a first  floor
                    apartment . .  . which  was the  home of  the
                    defendant  Manuel Valerio.   At the  time the
                    officers executed the  warrant, the defendant
                    was  at home  . .  .  he was  advised of  his
                    Miranda  warning by  the officers.   At  that
                    _______
                    time  he agreed  to show the  police officers
                    where the drugs  in his  house were  located.
                    He  led the officers to the master bedroom in
                    the apartment.  Under the bed he pulled out a
                    bag  of rice.  Examination of that bag showed

                                         -2-

                    The  district  court  calculated the  defendant s  base

          offense level as  32 pursuant to   2D1.1(c)(4)  of the Sentencing

          Guidelines  drug quantity table.2   The government argued and the

          sentencing court agreed  that Note A to    2D1.1(c) applied which

          indicates that if  a mixture or substance contains  more than one

          controlled  substance, "the  weight  of  the  entire  mixture  or

          substance is assigned to the controlled substance that results in

          the greater  offense level."   Consequently, the three  bags with

          weight of 123.4 grams  was treated as crack cocaine.3   The Court

                              
          ____________________

                    that it contained  three plastic  bags.   The
                    plastic bags each contained a substance later
                    determined  in total to  be 123.4 grams  of a
                    mixture containing powder cocaine and cocaine
                    base  . .  . in  a  bedroom closet,  officers
                    seized  a baby  wipes container.   Inside  of
                    that were  two bags  of cut  and  also a  bag
                    containing 7.43 grams of cocaine base.  

                    The defendant  agreed with the  above factual
                    basis.  

          2   This  subsection applies  to offenses  involving at  least 50
          grams, but less than 150 grams of crack cocaine.  

          3  Prior  to sentencing, the defendant moved  for the opportunity
          to  have a  forensic  chemist separate  and  measure the  cocaine
          powder and the cocaine base.   The motion was unopposed. However,
          the defendant did not follow up on the request.  Nonetheless, the
          defendant  argues that had  the crack cocaine  been isolated from
          the  cocaine powder, the resulting  base offense level would have
          been 26, with a net offense level of 25, which when combined with
          the defendant's Criminal History of II, would have provided for a
          range of 63-78 months.  In order  to lower the base offense level
          to 26,  the weight of the  separated cocaine base,  when added to
          the 7.43 grams  of crack cocaine in the  separate container would
          have to have  been less  than 12.57  grams of cocaine  base as   
          2D1.1(c)(7) provides  for a  base offense level  of 26  where the
          crack  cocaine is not more than  20 grams.  It  is not clear from
          the record as  to why counsel  for the defendant  is of the  view
          that the "separated" crack cocaine  in the three containers would
          have weighed less than 12.57 grams.  

                                         -3-

          found  that the  offense level was  31 with a  Guideline Range of

          121-151  months by assessing a two  level increase for possession

          of  a  firearm and  a  three  level  decrease for  acceptance  of

          responsibility.  

                    The  government moved for a downward departure based on

          substantial  assistance (   5K1.1)  and  the  Court  reduced  the

          sentence below the mandatory  minimum to a term of 60 months from

          which the defendant now appeals.4  

                    The  emerging issues in  determining the weight  of the

          offending  controlled substances5  was partially  responsible for

          the subsequent amendment 484 to the Sentencing Guidelines  and in

          which the  defendant takes comfort  in this case.   Amendment 484

          which  became  effective   November  1,  1993  and   amended  the

          commentary to   2D1.1 by deleting "21 U.S.C.   841" and inserting

          in lieu thereof:

                    "21  U.S.C.      841,  except   as  expressly
                    provided.    Mixture  or  substance does  not
                    include materials that must be separated from
                    the   controlled    substance   before    the
                    controlled substance can  be used.   Examples
                    of such materials include the fiberglass in a
                    cocaine/fiberglass  bonded suitcase,  beeswax
                              
          ____________________

          4  The  defendant's sentencing range, prior to  departure was 121
          to 151 months.   The prosecution advocated a  seven year sentence
          and  the defendant  a three  year sentence.   The  district court
          indicated  it would,  in effect,  cut  the sentence  in half  and
          sentence  the defendant  to the  sixty-month  term.   Defendant's
          counsel reasons that had the cocaine powder and cocaine base been
          separated for sentencing purposes with a resulting range of 63 to
          78 months, cutting the sentence in  half would have resulted in a
          32 month sentence.  Hence, the appeal.  

          5   See United States  v. Mahecha-Onofre, 936  F.2d 623 (1st Cir.
                  _____________     ______________
          1991) and  United States  v. L pez-Gil, 965  F.2d 1124  (1st Cir.
                     _____________     _________
          1992).

                                         -4-

                    in a cocaine/beeswax statute, and waste water
                    from   an   illicit    laboratory   used   to
                    manufacture a controlled substance.  If  such
                    material cannot readily be separated from the
                    mixture  or substance  that appropriately  is
                    counted in the Drug Quantity Table, the court
                    may use any  reasonable method to approximate
                    the  weight of the mixture or substance to be
                    counted.

                    An  upward   departure  nonetheless   may  be
                    warranted  when  the   mixture  or  substance
                    counted  in   the  Drug  Quantity   Table  is
                    combined with  other, non-countable  material
                    in an unusually sophisticated manner in order
                    to avoid detection.".

                    It is without dispute that the defendant possessed with

          intent  to  distribute  a  substance  containing  two  controlled

          substances.  Nonetheless, because the two are not ingested in the

          same manner, (the  powder is  inhaled  and the  crack  is smoked)

          the  defendant argues  they  must  be  separated  for  sentencing

          purposes  in reliance  on the  Amended Commentary  to U.S.S.G.   

          2D1.1  as the  cocaine powder  and cocaine  base come  within the

          concept of "materials  that must be separated from the controlled

          substance before the controlled substance can be used."  However,

          as indicated in United States v.  Campbell, 61 F.3d 976, 982 (1st
                          _____________     ________

          Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116  S. Ct. 1556 (1996) "the commentary
                      ____________

          excludes only materials  that are unusable or  unmarketable, such

          as those  used to  transport the  controlled substance,  or waste

          products  that are discarded  before the controlled  substance is

          put  into the  distribution  chain."   (Citations  omitted).   As

          neither  the  cocaine  powder  or  cocaine  base  is unusable  or

          unmarketable,  the revisions  to the  commentary to  U.S.S.G.    

                                         -5-

          2D1.1  provided by  Amendment 484  are  of no  assistance to  the

          defendant.6  

                    Accordingly, the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.
                                                                  AFFIRMED

                              
          ____________________

          6  Defendant's counsel, at the  sentencing hearing, advocated the
          separation contending that finding the two substances together is
          illogical and went on to state that he could not explain  why the
          cocaine base  and cocaine  powder were mixed.   No  testimony was
          offered as to why they were mixed,  but in our view the motive or
          lack of motive for the mixture is not relevant.  

                                         -6-