United States v. Bennett
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 21091
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Bennett pleaded guilty to distributing and conspiring to distribute BZP, a controlled substance.
- At sentencing, the district court used MDMA (Ecstasy) quantity as the reference for calculating BZP penalties under USSG §2D1.1, cmt. 5.
- Bennett objected that BZP is not sufficiently equivalent to MDMA in potency or effects.
- The PSR calculated 330 grams of BZP as equivalent to 165 kg of marijuana, yielding a base offense level of 26.
- The district court continued sentencing to review the BZP–MDMA relationship, then concluded BZP was sufficiently related to MDMA and sentenced Bennett at the bottom of the Guidelines range to 57 months.
- On appeal Bennett argues procedural error for not adequately considering BZP’s lack of equivalency and for insufficient explanation; the government argues the court properly considered and explained its reasoning.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BZP and MDMA were sufficiently equivalent for quantity purposes | Bennett argues BZP is less potent and unrelated to MDMA; guidelines do not reference BZP. | Bennett contends district court failed to show adequate equivalence to MDMA. | No significant procedural error; district court adequately considered and explained equivalence. |
| Whether the district court adequately explained its reliance on BZP–MDMA comparability | Bennett claims insufficient reasoning for equating BZP with MDMA. | Court conducted research, reviewed evidence, and explained under 3553(a) factors. | Court's explanation was adequate for meaningful appellate review. |
| Whether Bennett preserved the issue for plain-error review | N/A. | N/A. | Contemporaneous objection defeats plain-error review; no plain-error issue here. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Burns, 577 F.3d 887 (8th Cir. 2009) (necessity of adequate explanation for sentencing decisions)
- United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009 (en banc)) (procedural errors in applying guidelines; standard for review)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (reasoned framework for reviewing sentences and explanations)
- United States v. Dixon, 650 F.3d 1080 (8th Cir. 2011) (de novo review of guidelines application; factual findings reviewed for clear error)