holding that application of § 2S1.1(a)(1) was appropriate where the drug quantity was unknown because the defendant was involved in the drug conspiracy, and the quantity of drugs for which the defendant was responsible could be approximated
How later courts described this case
- holding that application of § 2S1.1(a)(1) was appropriate where the drug quantity was unknown because the defendant was involved in the drug conspiracy, and the quantity of drugs for which the defendant was responsible could be approximated
- rejecting government’s argument that a district court’s misapplication of the Guidelines was harmless where the district court stated that it “ha[d] also determined that this would be the appropriate sentence and the sentence the Court would have imposed even had the Court determined that a different sentencing guideline range applied than the one the Court found applicable”
- affirming use of drug-conspiracy guideline to calculate base offense level because although there was “no evidence that [defendant] personally sold narcotics, her conduct did further the drug conspiracy to sell the narcotics and she was, therefore, responsible for the drug conspiracy”
- determining defendant’s involvement in the drug conspiracy and the amount of drugs she “could have reasonably foreseen” for setting her base offense level on her money laundering charge
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I write separately only to emphasize that we are not now holding, nor have we ever held, that an error in calculating the advisory Guidelines range can never be harmless. See United States v. Hazelwood, 398 F.3d 792, 801 (6th Cir.2005).