United States v. Lababneh
647 F. App'x 15
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- Defendant Abdelmaji Lababneh pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute XLR11 (a synthetic cannabinoid) in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846, and was sentenced to 97 months.
- Plea agreement contained an appeal waiver of all challenges to conviction and any sentence ≤240 months, except reserved the right to challenge the district court’s use of a 1:167 THC-to-marijuana equivalency ratio to calculate base offense level.
- The PSR described XLR11 as chemically and pharmacologically mimicking THC and applied the Guidelines’ THC-to-marijuana equivalency ratio of 1:167 to compute the Guidelines range (168–210 months).
- Lababneh did not object to the PSR’s description or the offense-level calculation at sentencing and sought a downward variance, which the district court granted, imposing 97 months.
- On appeal Lababneh challenged: (1) validity of temporary scheduling of XLR11 (waived); (2) substantive failure to vary sentence sufficiently (waived); and (3) the use of the 1:167 THC-to-marijuana conversion ratio (preserved and appealed).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of temporary scheduling of XLR11 | Govt: scheduling valid | Lababneh: scheduling invalid | Waived by appeal waiver; not considered |
| Sufficiency of downward variance | Govt: sentence reasonable | Lababneh: court should have varied more | Waived by appeal waiver; not considered |
| Whether THC or marijuana is the most closely related Guideline comparator for XLR11 | Govt: XLR11 most closely related to THC | Lababneh: XLR11 is closer to marijuana | No plain error; district court’s finding that XLR11 is like THC stands given record and lack of contrary evidence |
| Validity of the 1:167 THC-to-marijuana equivalency ratio | Govt: Guidelines ratio is a proper benchmark | Lababneh: ratio arbitrary, overstates seriousness | Not preserved with evidentiary support; court may use 1:167 as starting point; no plain error; district court reasonably varied below Guidelines |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Pearson, 570 F.3d 480 (2d Cir.) (knowing and voluntary appellate-waiver enforceable)
- United States v. Difeaux, 163 F.3d 725 (2d Cir. 1998) (court enforces valid appellate waivers)
- United States v. Zillgitt, 286 F.3d 128 (2d Cir. 2002) (plain-error review framework for unpreserved sentencing claims)
- United States v. Hester, 589 F.3d 86 (2d Cir.) (preserved reservation in plea may be waived if specific arguments not raised below)
- United States v. Youngs, 687 F.3d 56 (2d Cir.) (elements of plain-error review articulated)
- United States v. Robinson, 702 F.3d 22 (2d Cir.) (what constitutes procedural error at sentencing)
- United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. en banc) (abuse-of-discretion standard for procedural-reasonableness challenges)
- Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007) (Guidelines may serve as the starting point; courts may vary based on policy disagreements)