Court Opinion

ID: 9494637
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 15:42:57.049014+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:56:31.802342
License: Public Domain

CARNES, Circuit Judge,
concurring in which DUBINA, Circuit Judge, joins:
The defendants in this appeal were convicted of possessing precursor chemicals for the manufacture of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(d)(1). At the time this case arose, and until recently, *1031the guidelines provided that where “there is no drug seizure or the amount seized does not reflect the scale of the offense, the court shall approximate the quantity of the controlled substance,” and they advised that in doing so the court could consider such factors as “the price generally obtained for the controlled substance, financial or other records, similar transactions in controlled substances by the defendant, and the size or capability of any laboratory involved.” U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, comment, (n.12) (2000). We took this case en banc to consider issues relating to that process of approximation that was mandated by the guidelines.
Since this case arose, however, the guidelines have been amended so that they now provide more simply and directly for calculation of the base offense level for § 841(d)(1) offenses according to the weight of the precursor chemicals. See U.S. Sentencing Comm’n Supp. to the 2000 Guidelines Manual, Amendment No. 611, pp. 67 -78 (May 1, 2001). That amendment is effective May 1, 2001. Id. at 78. En banc rehearing is “an extraordinary procedure” intended for correction of “precedent-setting error[s] of exceptional importance.” 11th Cir. R. 35-3. Because of the guidelines amendment the issues involved in this case are no longer of “exceptional importance.”
For these reasons, I concur in the order of this court vacating the order granting rehearing en banc in this case.