United States v. Robert Ingram

67 F.3d 126, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 27833, 1995 WL 581279
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedOctober 5, 1995
Docket94-6036
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 67 F.3d 126 (United States v. Robert Ingram) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Robert Ingram, 67 F.3d 126, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 27833, 1995 WL 581279 (6th Cir. 1995).

Opinion

HEYBURN, District Judge.

Defendant Robert Ingram appeals for a reduction in the sentence he received following his conviction for possession with intent to distribute lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD). The Court must determine the proper weight, for sentencing purposes, to be attributed to 6.2 grams of “liquid LSD,” which consisted of 5.1 milligrams of the pure drug dissolved in an unidentified liquid. Based on the following discussion, we reverse the decision below and remand to the district court to recalculate Defendant’s sentence.

*127 I.

During the execution of a search warrant at Defendant’s residence, officers discovered a vial of liquid, later determined to be LSD. The total weight of the solution was 6.2 grams, of which 5.1 milligrams was pure LSD. A jury found Defendant guilty of possession with intent to distribute LSD. At sentencing, Defendant argued that the court’s determination of the amount involved in the offense should not include the weight of the liquid in which the drug was dissolved. The district court, however, used the entire weight of the liquid LSD to calculate the sentence and sentenced Defendant to 78 months imprisonment and four years of supervised release.

In 1994, Defendant filed a motion for reduction of his term of imprisonment based on Amendment 488 to § 2Dl.l(c) of the Sentencing Guidelines, which had become effective on November 1, 1993. The U.S. Sentencing Commission promulgated Amendment 488 to eliminate the disparity in sentences for offenses involving the same quantity of LSD on different carrier mediums by standardizing the weight of each dose of LSD as 0.4 milligrams, irrespective of the actual weight of the dose, which would vary according to the weight of the carrier medium. 1 The amendment applies retroactively pursuant to U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(c). Defendant contends that calculation of his sentence according to the terms of Amendment 488 would lower his sentencing range pursuant to the guidelines from the 78 months he received to ten to sixteen months. Because Defendant’s offense carries a statutory minimum sentence of five years, a longer term than that indicated in the applicable guideline range, Defendant argues his sentence should be reduced to five years imprisonment.

In denying Defendant’s motion, the district court held that the amendment did not benefit Defendant because his charges involved liquid LSD which was not on a carrier medium, and therefore the weight of the liquid LSD was properly used to calculate his sentence. The issues presented on this appeal are whether Amendment 488 to § 2Dl.l(c) of the Sentencing Guidelines applies to liquid LSD. and if so, whether the standardized weight required by Amendment 488 alters the calculation of the mandatory minimum sentence required by statute.

II.

Liquid LSD is the intermediate form of the drug. In its pure crystalline form, LSD is extremely potent. Before it may be used or sold, therefore, the drug must be combined with a carrier medium. This is done initially by dissolving the pure LSD in a solvent such as alcohol. This form of the drug, commonly referred to as “liquid LSD,” is somewhat unstable, however, because the solvent has a tendency to evaporate. Liquid LSD is usually placed upon a stable carrier such as blotting paper, sugar cubes, or gelatin capsules before it is sold. The liquid LSD is applied to the carrier and the solution is allowed to evaporate, leaving a small amount of LSD on the carrier. United States v. Jordan, 842 F.Supp. 1031, 1032 (M.D.Tenn.1994) (citing Chapman v. United States, 500 U.S. 453, 457, 111 S.Ct. 1919, 1923, 114 L.Ed.2d 524 (1991)).

At present, there are dual rules instructing how courts calculate carrier medium weight in LSD eases. In the mandatory minimum sentence context, the Supreme Court’s decision in Chapman v. United States requires use of the total weight of LSD and any carrier medium. In the Sentencing Guidelines context, the amended § 2D1.1 requires .use of a standard weight of 0.4 milligrams per dose. This circuit requires the courts to calculate a sentence under both systems. Where a statutorily required minimum sentence is greater than the maximum of the applicable guideline range, *128 the statutorily required minimum sentence controls. U.S.S.G. § 5Gl.l(b).

21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(l)(B)(v) calls for a mandatory minimum sentence of five years for the offense of possessing or distributing more than 1 gram but less than 10 grams of “a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of LSD.” In Chapman v. United States, the Supreme Court held that the use of the phrase “mixture or substance” means that the entire weight of the carrier medium for the LSD should be included for purposes of determining a minimum sentence. 500 U.S. 453, 461, 111 S.Ct. 1919, 1925, 114 L.Ed.2d 524 (1991). In Chapman, however, the Court did not consider liquid LSD, but looked at carriers commonly used by drug dealers, such as blotter paper, sugar cubes, and gelatin capsules. See Chapman, 500 U.S. at 457, 111 S.Ct. at 1923-24 & n. 2.

The Chapman Court held that, in enacting § 841, Congress adopted a “market-oriented” approach to punishing drug trafficking. Under this approach, the total quantity of what is distributed, rather than the amount of pure drug involved, is used to determine the length of the sentence. Id. at 461, 111 S.Ct. at 1925. The weight of the carrier medium is only used for sentencing purposes in those cases in which the drug is in a form which is “ready for wholesale or ready for distribution at the retail level.” Id. The U.S. Sentencing Commission adopted Amendment 488 to § 2Dl.l(e) of the Guidelines to alleviate unwarranted disparities among offenses involving the same amount of actual LSD where the weight of LSD carrier media vary widely and typically may far exceed the weight of the drug itself. Guidelines, § 2D1.1, Application Note 18, Background. Liquid LSD, however, is LSD that has not been placed onto a carrier medium. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, comment (n.18). A district court in this Circuit has held that because the liquid solvent is not a carrier medium, Amendment 488 does not apply and a sentencing court should weigh the pure LSD alone to calculate the offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. Jordan, 842 F.Supp. 1031, 1033 (M.D.Tenn.1994). This produces a result diametrically opposed to the district court’s conclusion in this case. We believe that an intermediate approach is more appropriate.

Application Note 18 provides that, in the case of liquid LSD, “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.” Guidelines, § 2D1.1. By allowing an upward departure in cases where a carrier medium is not used, the Sentencing Commission remains consistent with the market-oriented approach to sentencing for drug crimes.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Dorian Grant
397 F.3d 1330 (Eleventh Circuit, 2005)
United States v. Pickard
298 F. Supp. 2d 1140 (D. Kansas, 2003)
United States v. Keresztury
293 F.3d 750 (Fifth Circuit, 2002)
United States v. Morgan
292 F.3d 460 (Fifth Circuit, 2002)
United States v. Aaron Camacho
261 F.3d 1071 (Eleventh Circuit, 2001)
United States v. Sia
First Circuit, 1996
United States v. Kurt Keahola Lawson
94 F.3d 656 (Tenth Circuit, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
67 F.3d 126, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 27833, 1995 WL 581279, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-robert-ingram-ca6-1995.