United States v. Phillip McGee
663 F. App'x 262
| 4th Cir. | 2016Background
- Phillip Allen McGee pled guilty to conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine under 21 U.S.C. § 846 pursuant to a written plea agreement.
- District court calculated Guidelines, applied enhancements, but imposed a below-Guidelines sentence of 234 months’ imprisonment.
- At sentencing, testimony established hazardous chemicals and byproducts from methamphetamine manufacture, disposal by littering and burning, and manufacture while traveling in a vehicle.
- Evidence showed McGee introduced the “one‑pot” method locally, taught several people to manufacture methamphetamine, had others buy pseudoephedrine, and distributed/sold methamphetamine through associates.
- Defense counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no meritorious issues but questioning (1) application of a 2‑level environmental hazard enhancement, (2) a 4‑level leader/organizer enhancement, and (3) substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (McGee) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether USSG § 2D1.1(b)(13)(A) environmental/hazardous‑substance enhancement applies | District court erred; testimony and qualification of witness insufficient to show violation of environmental statutes or hazardous release | Testimony showed hazardous chemicals/byproducts with potential to harm health/environment and unlawful disposal methods, satisfying guideline commentary tied to statutes | Enhancement properly applied; district court did not err |
| Whether USSG § 3B1.1(a) four‑level organizer/leader enhancement applies | McGee contends the conspiracy was atypical and he was not an organizer/leader warranting a 4‑level increase | McGee taught others, centralized activity, had multiple participants buy and sell for him, and introduced the method locally—demonstrating leadership | District court’s factual finding of leader/organizer not clearly erroneous; enhancement upheld |
| Whether the below‑Guidelines 234‑month sentence is substantively unreasonable | McGee argues sentence is excessive under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors | Sentence is within/below a properly calculated Guidelines range and is presumptively reasonable; no showing to rebut the presumption | Sentence is substantively reasonable; presumption not rebutted |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedure for counsel to file brief when asserting appeal is frivolous)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard of review for sentencing; substantive reasonableness assessed under totality of circumstances)
- Steffen v. United States, 741 F.3d 411 (4th Cir. 2013) (deference to district court on Guidelines application; review standards)
- Thorson v. United States, 633 F.3d 312 (4th Cir. 2011) (role enhancement factual finding reviewed for clear error)
- Louthian v. United States, 756 F.3d 295 (4th Cir. 2014) (presumption of reasonableness for within‑ or below‑Guidelines sentences)
- Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 (1993) (Guidelines commentary is authoritative unless contrary to statute or Constitution)
- United States v. Powell, 650 F.3d 388 (4th Cir. 2011) (Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply at sentencing)