Reply Brief — Bouvier v. United States (No. 92-5257)
Supreme Court brief1992
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
/ Nz Supreme Court, U.S.
DISTRIBUTED FILED
ar ww i492 NO. 92-5257 “ ) QCT i5 199?
UFFICE OF THE CLERA
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
October Term, 1992
Robert Wayne Bouvier, Petitioner
vs.
United States of America, Respondent
REPLY BRIEF OF ROBERT WAYNE BOUVIER
TO BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION TO
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
NO. 92-5257
- IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
October Term, 1992
Robert Wayne Bouvier, Petitioner
vs.
United States of America, Respondent
Respectfully submitted,
QUESTION PRESENTED:
DAVIS & WILKERSON, P.C. |
P.O. Box 2283 |
Austin, Texas 78768-2283 WHETHER THE WEIGHT OF TOXIC WASTE MATERIAL, WHICH IS THE
(512) 482-0614 BYPRODUCT OF A DRUG MANUFACTURING PROCESS, SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN
(512) 482-0340 (Fax) THE CALCULATION OF A DEFENDANT’S BASE OFFENSE LEVEL UNDER FEDERAL
SENTENCING GUIDELINES § 2D1.1.
Y dew
David A. Wright
State Bar No./ 22026300
Leonard Woods, Jr.
State Bar No. 21958050
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
SERVICE TO:
Solicitor General
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530
July 22, 1992
NO. 92-5257
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
October Term, 1992
Robert Wayne Bouvier, Petitioner
vs.
United States of America, Respondent
REPLY BRIEF OF ROBERT WAYNE BOUVIER
TO BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION TO
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Robert Bouvier respectfully files this his Reply Brief To
Brief For The United States In Opposition To Petition For Writ Of
Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Fifth
Circuit.
ARGUMENT FOR ALLOWANCE OF WRIT
The United States in its Brief in Opposition to this Writ
admits that there is a split of authority among the circuits as to
the calculation of drug amount to determine a defendant’s base
offense level under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Although
the Government has interpreted the decision of this Court in
Chapman vy. United States, 111 S.Ct. 1919 (1991) to be consistent
with its position, the Second, Sixth, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits
;
have all considered and rejected the position now taken by the
Government. To accept the argument of the Government and deny
certiorari would serve only to perpetuate a system in which the
length of the sentence imposed upon a person accused of a violation
of controlled substance laws would vary widely depending upon the
Circuit in which he was charged. The position of the Government
would further frustrate the objective of Congress in enacting the
Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 to impose reasonable uniformity in
sentencing by narrowing the wide disparity of sentences imposed for
similar offenses by similar offenders.
Movant further takes exception to Footnote 2 of the Brief For
' The United States In Opposition regarding Mr. Bouvier’s proper base
offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines. Apparently, the
Government requests this Court assume that the one hundred forty-
six (146) grams of methamphetamine seized was "actual" (a word not
used in the Drug Quantity Table) or “pure” methamphetamine. The
Government has no evidence to suggest anything to support their
assertion concerning the quality of the methamphetamine seized.
Obviously, a consideration of the quality of methamphetamine for
sentencing purposes would be a factual question for consideration
by the trial court and has no relevance to this Court’s
consideration of this petition. In truth, the proper application
of drug amount to base offense level in Mr. Bouvier case would
; United States v. Acoste, 963 F.2d 551 (2nd Cir. 1992); United States v. Touby, 909 F.2d 759
(3rd Cir.), aff'd om other grounds, 111 S. Ct 1752 (1991); United Stetes v. Jennings, 945 F.2d 129 (éth Cir.
1991); United States v. Rolande-Gabriel 938 F.2d 1231 (11th Cir. 1991).
5
result in an offense level of 26 and not 32 as asserted by the
Government.
CONCLUSION
The petition should be granted in this case to correct the
Fifth cCircuit’s misinterpretation of the Federal Sentencing
Guidelines and to settle the discrepancy among the circuit courts
concerning sentencing for controlled substance offenses.
Respectfully submitted,
DAVIS & WILKERSON, P.Cc.
P.O. Box 2283
Austin, Texas 78768-2283
(512) 482-0614
(512) 482-0340 (Fax)
Vary
David A. Wright
State Bar No. 22026300
Leonard W s, Jr.
State Bar No. 21958050
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
NO. 22-5257
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
October Term, 1992
Robert Wayne Bouvier, Petitioner
vs.
United States of America, Respondent
PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned counsel of record for Petitioner Robert Wayne
Bouvier hereby certifies that on this the LAK day of Ctoter
1992, true and correct copies of the foregoing Reply Brief To Brief
For The United States In Opposition To Petition For Writ of
Certiorari To The United States Court of Appeals For the Fifth
Circuit have been served by depositing the same in a United States
Office or mailbox, with first class postage prepaid, addressed to
counsel of record of all parties required to be served, at their
proper post offices addresses as follows:
Le Roy Moran Jahn
U.S. Attorney’s Office
727 E. Durango
Suite A-601
San Antonio, Texas 78206
512/229-6500
ATTORNEY FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Solicitor General
Department of Justice
Washington, C.D. 20530
202/514-2000
ATTORNEY FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
James M. Nias
Small, Craig & Werkenthin
A Professional Corporation
100 Congress, Suite 1100
Austin, Texas 78701
512/472-8355
ATTORNEY FOR JOE GUERRA
Kenneth E. Houp, Jr.
Attorney at Law
910 West Avenue
Austin, Texas 78701
512/477-4434
ATTORNEY FOR WAYNE EUGENE WALKER
Respectfully submitted,
DAVIS & WILKERSON, P.C.
1680 One American Center
600 Congress Avenue
P.O. Box 2283
Austin, Texas 78768-2283
(512) 482-0614
(512) 482-9342 (Facsimile)
w: Dt Jey
David A. Wright
State Bar No 22026300
ATTORNEYS FOR ROBERT WAYNE BOUVIER
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.