United States v. Jenney Dinh
920 F.3d 307
5th Cir.2019Background
- Defendant Jenney Dinh pleaded guilty to distributing pills that laboratory testing showed contained fentanyl analogues; sentenced to 151 months (bottom of 151–188 Guidelines range).
- Three separate seizures: 991, 1,001, and 506 pills (total 2,498 pills; net weight 838.9 g) were sampled—28–29 pills tested from each batch (85 total) and every tested pill contained a fentanyl analogue.
- Lab reports stated a 95% confidence that at least 90% of items in each batch contained the analogue; reports did not disclose underlying chemical/evidentiary models in detail.
- The Presentence Report (PSR) attributed the full net weight (mixture weight) of the tested pill packages—838.9 g—as the relevant drug quantity for sentencing.
- Dinh objected at sentencing and on appeal, arguing (1) mixture-weight calculation violates due process, (2) Sixth Amendment confrontation right should apply at sentencing (to cross-examine lab analysts), and (3) PSR lacked adequate evidentiary basis to extrapolate from sampled pills to all pills.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dinh) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sentencing may use mixture weight (total pill weight) rather than isolated controlled-substance weight | Mixture-weight rule is arbitrary and disproportionate; punishes based on diluents | Guidelines specify mixture weight for substances not otherwise listed; fentanyl analogues fall under that rule | Court upheld mixture-weight calculation as consistent with Guidelines and Chapman; no due-process violation |
| Whether the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause requires live testimony/cross-examination of lab analysts at sentencing | Crawford principles should extend to sentencing, at least for scientific/technical evidence | Precedent holds there is no confrontation right at sentencing; Crawford did not overrule sentencing-phase law | Rejected; no Sixth Amendment confrontation right at sentencing per binding Supreme Court and circuit precedent |
| Whether lab reports provided an adequate evidentiary basis to extrapolate that untested pills contained fentanyl analogues | PSR’s extrapolation lacks sufficient indicia of reliability; government should explain statistical methods | Lab reports (two labs, three batches, 100% of samples positive; 95% confidence statements) are presumptively reliable; defendant offered no rebuttal evidence | Court held lab reports gave adequate evidentiary basis and defendant failed to present competent rebuttal; extrapolation permissible |
| Whether any material sentencing error would result from a lower attributable purity/quantity | Even if purity lower, defendant argues quantity could be overstated affecting Guidelines | With 838.9 g attributable, base offense level 32 (300–1,000 g); threshold for level reached even at much lower purity | Court noted base offense level would remain the same unless attributable quantity fell below ~35.8% of weight; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Chapman v. United States, 500 U.S. 453 (mixture-weight sentencing upheld)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause principles)
- Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241 (no confrontation right at sentencing)
- Williams v. Oklahoma, 358 U.S. 576 (sentencing procedures and evidence admissibility)
- United States v. Alaniz, 726 F.3d 586 (clearly erroneous standard; defendant rebuttal at sentencing)
- United States v. Harris, 702 F.3d 226 (PSR factual basis and indicia of reliability)
- United States v. Koss, 812 F.3d 460 (presumption of reliability for lab reports at sentencing)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 666 F.3d 944 (permitting extrapolation from sampled lab results)
- United States v. Valdez, 453 F.3d 252 (permitting quantity extrapolation for sentencing)