U.S. v. Cole, 97-1734
| Decision Date | 22 September 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-1734,97-1734 |
| Citation | 125 F.3d 654 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Charles Victor COLE, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Charles E. Smith, Asst. U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, Fort Smith, AR, for Appellee.
Stephen Gregory Hough, Hough & Hough, Fort Smith, AR, Charles Victor Cole, Federal Transfer Center, Oklahoma City, OK, for Appellant.
Before McMILLIAN, BEAM, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
In 1996, authorities seized an operational methamphetamine laboratory--including glassware, ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and manufacturing paraphernalia--from the residence of Charles Victor Cole; they also seized some actual methamphetamine in liquid and powder form. Cole later pleaded guilty to one count of manufacturing methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and the district court sentenced him to 151 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release. Cole appeals his sentence, arguing that the district court erred in calculating the amount of methamphetamine that could be produced from the seized chemicals and glassware, because the court used a "theoretical" ratio of 1 gram of ephedrine to .75 of a gram of methamphetamine rather than Cole's lower calculation, to which he testified at sentencing. Cole also argues that the court erred in denying him an acceptance-of-responsibility adjustment. We affirm the denial of the acceptance-of-responsibility adjustment, as it is undisputed that Cole repeatedly tested positive for methamphetamine while he was released on bond following his arrest for manufacturing methamphetamine. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1, comment. (n.3) (1995); United States v. Campos, 87 F.3d 261, 264 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 536, 136 L.Ed.2d 420 (1996) (standard of review); United States v. Poplawski, 46 F.3d 42, 43 (8th Cir.) (defendant's related criminal conduct while free on bond awaiting disposition of case may be considered in determining acceptance of responsibility), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1109, 115 S.Ct. 2261, 132 L.Ed.2d 266 (1995). Nevertheless, we vacate Cole's sentence and remand for further application of the Sentencing Guidelines as to drug quantity.
At sentencing, Cole testified that, although he had been cooking methamphetamine for 4 to 5 years, he had never yielded .75 of a gram from 1 gram of ephedrine, and that he usually yielded .25 of a gram. The chemist who analyzed Cole's laboratory testified that the .75 figure was an average based upon yields seen in the field; a certified lab investigator testified that he believed the .75 figure was appropriate in this case based on Cole's experience as a cook, the seized evidence, and information others had given regarding the quantity of methamphetamine Cole was dealing. In denying Cole's objection to the drug quantity recommended in the presentence report, the court determined the testimony of the lab...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Wayne, No. CR 88-17 C 97-75 (N.D. Iowa 4/30/2001), CR 88-17 C 97-75.
...would be, or even what an average methamphetamine cook would produce, but what appellants themselves could produce. United States v. Cole, 125 F.3d 654, 655 (8th Cir. 1997). However, appellants' co-conspirator was an experienced cook, the defense expert conceded that the conspirators' recip......
-
U.S. v. Eide, 02-1129.
...270 (2001) (evidence must be based not on theoretical yield but on what the particular defendant could produce); United States v. Cole, 125 F.3d 654, 655 (8th Cir.1997) (relevant inquiry is on what the defendant, not "an average cook," is capable of yielding). See also United States v. Esch......
-
U.S.A. v. Eschman, 00-1395
...regard for a particular defendant's capabilities when viewed in light of the drug laboratory involved. See, e.g., United States v. Cole, 125 F.3d 654, 655 (8th Cir. 1997) (relevant inquiry is on what defendant, not "an average cook," is capable of yielding); United States v. Hamilton, 81 F.......
-
U.S. v. Anderson
...would be, or even what an average methamphetamine cook would produce, but what appellants themselves could produce. United States v. Cole, 125 F.3d 654, 655 (8th Cir. 1997). However, appellants' co-conspirator was an experienced cook, the defense expert conceded that the conspirators' recip......