Federal Drug Case Appeal Results in Remand for Resentencing
In a Federal appeal of a drug conspiracy conviction, the Eleventh Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded the case back to the District Court for resentencing. Our client was charged in a multi-count federal drug trafficking / drug distribution case. We were successful in getting an acquittal on part of the indictment, then appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals on the counts of conviction.
During sentencing, the Government argued that the client should receive a longer sentence because the drugs involved originated in Mexico. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines contains a provision increasing punishment where the Government can prove that the offense involved the importation of methamphetamine from Mexico. The Sentencing Guidelines provides that a court may impose a two level enhancement if,
“the offense involved the importation of . . . methamphetamine or the manufacture of . . . methamphetamine from listed chemicals that the defendant knew were imported unlawfully.”
United States Sentencing Guidelines, § 2D1.1(b)(5).
At trial, the Government offered testimony from a Federal Agent that a very high percent of methamphetamine came from Mexico. The agent also testified that most methamphetamine in the Mobile, Alabama area came from Houston or Atlanta, and that the methamphetamine from Houston was smuggled directly from Mexico.
On appeal, we argued that the Government had not offered enough evidence of the importation or origin of the drugs involved in the case. The Eleventh Circuit agreed, holding that the Government had failed to “provide reliable and specific evidence supporting that the methamphetamine recovered from [our client] originated in Mexico,…” and that a court could not “speculate concerning the existence of a fact which would permit a more severe sentence under the guidelines.”
Because of the error, the case was remanded to the district court for a resentencing where the two level enhancement was not given.
The opinion can be found on the 11th Circuit Website under Appeal # 22-13660.
