United States v. Thomas Kohler, 690 F. App'x 648

Thomas Kohler was convicted of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine and sentenced to 151 months' imprisonment.
The sentencing dispute centered on whether Kohler was responsible for more than 1.5 kilograms of "methamphetamine ice" (methamphetamine mixture ≥80% purity) for quantity-based guideline calculation.
Evidence supporting the quantity finding: Kohler delivered a backpack containing a lunchbox with $45,000 to a known coconspirator; recorded jail calls included the conspiracy manager discussing the backpack contents with Kohler.
The district court inferred the cash was drug proceeds based on Kohler’s role as a courier and the recorded conversation, and used an undisputed conversion value ($20,000 per kilogram) to equate the proceeds to roughly 2 kg of methamphetamine ice.
At sentencing the court reduced Kohler’s offense level for mitigating and minor roles, yielding a Guidelines range of 151–188 months and imposed a 151-month sentence.
Kohler challenged the quantity finding and argued his sentence was substantively unreasonable and disparate compared to coconspirators.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court clearly erred in attributing >1.5 kg methamphetamine ice to Kohler	Kohler argued the quantity should not be based on the cash/value inference	Government argued cash equivocated to drug proceeds supporting the quantity finding	No clear error; court reasonably inferred cash were drug proceeds and converted value to ~2 kg
Whether Kohler invited error by accepting price-based valuation	Kohler contended price-based quantity was erroneous despite acknowledging street-value appraisal	Government argued Kohler invited error by accepting valuation	Court rejected invited-error claim; Kohler objected to price-based quantity calculation earlier, so did not invite error
Whether 151-month sentence was substantively unreasonable	Kohler argued sentence was disproportionate and disparate with coconspirators	Government argued sentence within reduced Guidelines range and justified by Kohler’s history and choices	No abuse of discretion; sentence at low end of Guidelines range was reasonable
Whether sentencing disparity with coconspirators required a lower sentence	Kohler argued he was similarly situated to coconspirators who received lighter sentences	Government and court noted differences in criminal history, prior incarcerations, probation violations, and Kohler’s decision to go to trial	Court held Kohler was not similarly situated and disparity did not render sentence unreasonable

United States v. Love, 449 F.3d 1154 (11th Cir. 2006) (defines "invited error" as induced or agreed-to decisions later challenged)
United States v. Chavez, 584 F.3d 1354 (11th Cir. 2009) (supports inferring cash is drug proceeds and converting value to drug quantity)
United States v. Wise, 881 F.2d 970 (11th Cir. 1989) (failure to object at sentencing can be construed as acquiescence)
United States v. Spoerke, 568 F.3d 1236 (11th Cir. 2009) (discusses when defendants are similarly situated for disparity claims)