Sentencing
Relevant conduct

In sentencing a defendant for conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, the district court did not err in estimating the capability of the defendant's laboratory.

"The defendants' lab had not been set up, but the court was still able to consider what its capability would have been because Olivas-Ramirez only gave Dominguez the twelve-pound number after he received assurances that the lab would be outfitted according to his requests. Additionally, the probable accuracy of the twelve-pound quantity was increased by evidence that the group was already involved in meth manufacture as shown by the operational lab in Chela's basement. Finally, if the 493 grams for which Bautista concedes he is responsible is added to the twelve pounds, the result is approximately 5.9 kilos. This means that, when taken in total, the evidence before the district court provided a buffer of almost 900 grams before the attributable quantity of meth would slip under five kilos and warrant a reduced base offense level. See United States v. Hollins, 498 F.3d 622, 631 (7th Cir. 2007) (noting that 'although evidence of drug quantity must be more than speculative, nebulous eyeballing, the sentencing guidelines permit some amount of reasoned speculation and reasonable estimation by a sentencing court') (quotation omitted)."

Affirmed.

07-1620 U.S. v. Bautista

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Holderman, J., Manion, J.

Full Text