U.S. v. Callihan, 89-7085
| Decision Date | 12 October 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-7085,89-7085 |
| Citation | 915 F.2d 1462 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry Lee CALLIHAN, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Roger Hilfiger and Sheldon J. Sperling, Muskogee, Okl., for plaintiff-appellee.
Don Ed Payne, Payne and Welch, Hugo, Okl., for defendant-appellant.
Before HOLLOWAY, Chief Judge, and SEYMOUR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 10th Cir.R 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Larry Lee Callihan challenges the sentence he received after pleading guilty to conspiring to manufacture, possess with intent to distribute, and distribute amphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 846. At the time of his arrest, 94 kilograms of phenalytic acid, sodium acetate, acetic anhydride, and phenyl-2-propanone were seized. These chemicals, when heated under proper conditions, produce phenyl-2-propanone ("P2P"), a precursor of amphetamine and a controlled substance. Testimony at the sentencing hearing revealed that the amount of P2P actually present in the seized mixture was 2.95 kilograms.
The district court determined the appropriate sentencing range based upon 94 kilograms of P2P. This resulted in an offense level of thirty-four. See United States Sentencing Comm'n, Guidelines Manual Sec. 2D1.1, comment. (n. 10) (Oct. 1987). Callihan, who was sentenced to one hundred and twenty months in prison, contends that the sentence should instead have been based on 2.95 kilograms, which would have resulted in an offense level of twenty-six. See id. The maximum sentence with that offense level would have been fifty-seven months.
Whether the district court was correct depends upon the interpretation of a footnote to the drug quantity table accompanying section 2D1.1 of the guidelines:
The scale amounts for all controlled substances refer to the total weight of the controlled substance. Consistent with the provisions of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, if any mixture or compound contains any detectable amount of a controlled substance, the entire amount of the mixture or compound shall be considered in measuring the quantity.
U.S.S.G. Sec. 2D1.1, table n. * (Oct. 1987). Callihan contends that "the total weight of the controlled substance" was 2.95 kilograms, and that the second sentence of the footnote means only that the controlled substance found in "the entire amount," instead of part of the amount, of a mixture or compound containing the controlled substance is the scale weight.
We disagr...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Richards, 94-4052
...----, 114 S.Ct. 1106, 127 L.Ed.2d 418 (1994); United States v. Dorrough, 927 F.2d 498, 502 (10th Cir.1991) (same); United States v. Callihan, 915 F.2d 1462 (10th Cir.1990) (same). It argues, however, that because " '[m]ixture or substance' as used in [section 2D1.1] has the same meaning as ......
-
U.S. v. Jennings
...without precedent to support the district court's decision to use the entire mixture in sentencing. See, e.g., United States v. Callihan, 915 F.2d 1462, 1463 (10th Cir.1990) (mixture weighing 94 kilograms was used to determine base offense which contained only 2.95 kilograms of phenyl-2-pro......
-
U.S. v. Killion
...of the Guidelines. The district court, citing United States v. Dorrough, 927 F.2d 498, 502 (10th Cir.1991), and United States v. Callihan, 915 F.2d 1462, 1463 (10th Cir.1990), ruled that the weight of unusable waste by-products containing a detectable amount of P-2-P are to be included for ......
-
U.S. v. Richards, 92-4197
...2D1.1 of the federal sentencing guidelines. See United States v. Dorrough, 927 F.2d 498, 502 (10th Cir.1991); United States v. Callihan, 915 F.2d 1462 (10th Cir.1990). Although several circuits did change their law following Chapman, Chapman itself did not contradict our previous decisions ......