United States v. Earl Ramos
814 F.3d 910
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Mary Ann Ramos managed an iWireless store and sold packets labeled as “potpourri” (Mr. Happy, Mr. Nice Guy) that DEA testing later showed contained synthetic cannabinoid XLR-11; she also sold jars labeled “Blue” that contained alpha-PVP (a synthetic cathinone analogue).
- DEA undercover purchases and a confidential informant controlled buy established sales; searches of Mary’s store, car, and home recovered numerous packaged synthetic cannabinoids, jars of “Blue,” and smoking paraphernalia.
- Mary was tried and convicted on counts including distribution and possession with intent to distribute XLR-11 and alpha-PVP (as a controlled substance analogue); a firearm count was tried and acquitted by the jury. Earl Ramos pleaded guilty to distributing a synthetic cathinone analogue (pentedrone).
- At sentencing the district court held an evidentiary hearing to decide which listed guideline substance is “most closely related” to the synthetic cannabinoids, focusing on whether to treat them like pure THC (1:167 marijuana-equivalency) or like marijuana (1:1). A DEA pharmacologist testified that the synthetics were pharmacologically similar to THC and often more potent.
- The district court applied the 1:167 THC equivalency and calculated base offense levels using the full weight of the mixtures; Mary received 60 months (downward variance), Earl 57 months. The defendants appealed sufficiency of evidence (Mary) and the guidelines calculation (both).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove Mary knew she sold a controlled substance (XLR-11) | Government: circumstantial evidence (hidden packets, street names, paraphernalia, high price, undercover sales) supports knowledge | Mary: Government failed to prove she knew the product contained a controlled substance | Affirmed — evidence viewed in light most favorable to Government was sufficient to prove general knowledge |
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove knowledge of analogue features (alpha-PVP) | Government: may prove knowledge circumstantially, including concealment, pricing, representations of use; McFadden method applies | Mary: Jury instruction and lack of direct evidence of chemical/pharmacological knowledge defeats conviction | Affirmed — circumstantial evidence supported the McFadden second method (knowledge of features making a substance an analogue) |
| Whether synthetic cannabinoids are "most closely related" to THC (warranting 1:167 ratio) | Government: expert testimony showed synthetics’ effects and potency are most like THC; compare controlled substance itself per Guideline comment 6 | Defendants: court should compare the actual sold mixture (potpourri: plant material + synthetics) to THC-based listed substances, which would favor marijuana/hashish equivalency (lower ratios) | Affirmed — court did not clearly err treating the controlled substances (synthetic cannabinoids) as most similar to THC and applying 1:167; weight of entire mixture properly included |
| Proper weight to use for guideline drug-quantity (mixture rule) | Government: Application Note A includes full weight of any mixture containing detectable controlled substance | Defendants: the inert plant material should dilute equivalency; separate treatment required | Affirmed — mixture-or-substance rule applies; entire weight counts absent separability or an express exception |
Key Cases Cited
- McFadden v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2298 (2015) (explains two alternative ways the Government may prove knowledge in analogue prosecutions)
- Musacchio v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 709 (2016) (sufficiency review is measured against statutory elements, not erroneous jury instructions)
- United States v. Carlson, 810 F.3d 544 (8th Cir. 2016) (upheld sentencing treatment of certain synthetic cannabinoids)
- United States v. Malone, 809 F.3d 251 (5th Cir. 2015) (treats similar-substance determination as a factual finding reviewed for clear error)
- United States v. Stanley, 362 F.3d 509 (8th Cir. 2004) (standard for review of factual findings at sentencing)
- United States v. Stewart, 761 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 2014) (explains Guidelines’ mixture-or-substance rule for drug quantity)
- Chapman v. United States, 500 U.S. 453 (1991) (discusses mixtures in drug sentencing context)