United States v. Giggey, 867 F.3d 236

Background

Defendant Leda Giggey pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute controlled and analogue substances after selling large quantities of synthetic cathinones (alpha‑PVP) in Maine.
Law enforcement seized items including 1.07 grams of alpha‑PVP, a ledger, scales, and incriminating texts; total procurement was 2,120.75 grams over 2012–2015.
Alpha‑PVP was not scheduled until March 2014, so prosecution relied on the Controlled Substance Analogue Enforcement Act and sentencing required converting alpha‑PVP into a marijuana equivalent via a comparator drug in the Guidelines.
The government argued methcathinone (Schedule I) was the proper comparator; Giggey argued for pyrovalerone (Schedule V). The comparator choice materially affected the Guidelines range.
The district court (relying on prior analysis in Brewer) found methcathinone the most closely related and converted the seized quantities to 805.89 kg marijuana equivalent, yielding a Guidelines range of 97–121 months; the court imposed a downward-variant sentence of 72 months.
On appeal, the First Circuit reviewed whether the district court erred in (1) limiting comparator selection to Schedule I/II substances and (2) choosing methcathinone over pyrovalerone; the court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Government)	Defendant's Argument (Giggey)	Held
Whether comparator for an unreferenced analogue must come from Schedules I or II	Guidelines/Analogue Act require comparator drawn from Schedule I or II substances	Pyrovalerone (Schedule V) should be considered; court erred by restricting to Schedules I/II	Court noted text supports I/II but found any statement restricting comparators harmless because district court nonetheless considered pyrovalerone and chose methcathinone on the merits
Whether methcathinone is the most closely related comparator to alpha‑PVP under the three‑factor test (structure, pharmacology, potency)	Methcathinone is closer overall, particularly in potency, so use its marijuana equivalency	Pyrovalerone is closer in chemical structure and would yield a lower sentence	District court’s choice of methcathinone withstands clear‑error review: court reasonably weighed all three factors and credited government expert testimony
Standard of review for comparator selection	(implicit) factual determination → clear‑error	same	First Circuit treated selection as factual and reviewed for clear error, deferring to district court’s credibility and weighing of experts
Application of rule of lenity to resolve competing plausible comparators	Not applicable; no statutory ambiguity presented	Rule of lenity should favor defendant because alternative comparator would reduce sentence	Rejected: lenity applies to statutory ambiguity, not to a factbound choice between plausible comparators

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Coombs, 857 F.3d 439 (1st Cir. 2017) (context on prevalence of synthetic cathinones and related sentencing issues)
United States v. Demers, 842 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2016) (drug equivalency table use and review of drug‑quantity findings)
United States v. Hurley, 842 F.3d 170 (1st Cir. 2016) (conversion to marijuana equivalent and Guidelines commentary interpretation)
United States v. Novak, 841 F.3d 721 (7th Cir. 2016) (treating comparator selection as factual; clear‑error review)
United States v. Malone, 828 F.3d 331 (5th Cir. 2016) (same)
United States v. Ramos, 814 F.3d 910 (8th Cir. 2016) (same)
United States v. Chowdhury, 639 F.3d 583 (2d Cir. 2011) (comparator factors need not perfectly align; overall fit controls)
United States v. Jordan, 813 F.3d 442 (1st Cir. 2016) (deference where dueling experts offer coherent, plausible opinions)
United States v. Ruiz, 905 F.2d 499 (1st Cir. 1990) (sentencing court’s choice among plausible views not clearly erroneous)
United States v. Suárez‑Gonzáles, 760 F.3d 96 (1st Cir. 2014) (textual interpretation and rule of lenity principles)