963 F.3d 470
5th Cir.2020Background
- Aparicio-Leon pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute at least 500 grams of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine under 21 U.S.C. § 841.
- The PSR and factual basis identified the seizure as 989 grams of d-methamphetamine hydrochloride at 97% purity (i.e., “ice”).
- The district court applied U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) using the purity-based ‘‘ice’’ category, yielding a base offense level of 34, and sentenced Aparicio to 165 months (within the Guidelines) plus five years supervised release.
- On appeal (plain-error review), Aparicio argued (1) due process violation for being sentenced as possessing “ice” when indicted for a methamphetamine mixture, and (2) procedural error for failing to adjust his sentence to account for roughly 9.5 months of pre-sentencing state custody that he believes BOP will not credit.
- The district court had ordered the federal sentence to run concurrently with any state sentence arising from the same offense; the state charges remained pending and BOP has authority to compute credit under 18 U.S.C. § 3585.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sentencing based on ‘‘ice’’ methamphetamine violated due process / notice when the indictment alleged a mixture | Aparicio: Indictment charged a mixture; sentencing on ‘‘ice’’ increased guidelines without notice | Government: Guidelines direct using pure‑methamphetamine weight when it produces a higher offense level; factual basis admitted purity | Court: No plain error—Guidelines permit using purity; defendant admitted 97% purity; not an element requiring indictment notice |
| Whether district court procedurally erred by not adjusting sentence for pre‑sentence state custody credit | Aparicio: Court intended he receive credit and should have adjusted sentence downward for ~9.5 months state custody BOP may not credit | Government: BOP, not the district court, computes § 3585(b) credit; court only made a non‑binding recommendation and ordered concurrency | Court: No plain error—district court cannot award custody credit; BOP will compute credit; defendant has administrative/judicial remedies if credit denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (plain‑error review elements)
- Rosales‑Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897 (correcting plain error only when it seriously affects fairness/integrity)
- United States v. Molina, 469 F.3d 408 (5th Cir.) (Guidelines purity-based calculation not governed by indictment language)
- United States v. Lee, 725 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir.) (base level for methamphetamine depends on weight and purity)
- United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329 (BOP, not district court, determines jail‑time credit under § 3585)