United States v. Keith Clayton Mesner

Citations: 377 F.3d 849; 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 15369; 2004 WL 1647389Docket: 03-2673

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; July 26, 2004; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Keith Mesner pleaded guilty to conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a school, violating 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A). He appeals his sentence, claiming the district court erred in its findings regarding (1) his accountability for 315 grams of actual methamphetamine and (2) his classification as an "organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor" in a crime involving fewer than five participants. 

The case originated on November 29, 2001, when law enforcement investigated a strong ether smell from Mesner's garage. Upon questioning, he provided misleading explanations about the odors and substances found in his garage, which led to further investigations. Authorities executed search warrants at Mesner's and his associate Gary Moeller's residences, uncovering methamphetamine labs and seizing small amounts of methamphetamine.

Mesner later confessed to manufacturing methamphetamine and estimated producing between 315 and 420 grams over six months. He had multiple run-ins with law enforcement, including two arrests for possessing methamphetamine precursors. In December 2002, he was charged federally, and in February 2003, he pleaded guilty under a plea agreement, allowing the judge to determine the drug quantity and his role in the offense. The appellate court affirms part of the district court's findings but reverses and remands on others.

On June 13, 2003, during a sentencing hearing, Moeller testified that he and others assisted Mesner in manufacturing methamphetamine. Mesner acknowledged cooking methamphetamine approximately thirty times, which corroborated his previous statements. The district court attributed 315 grams of actual methamphetamine to Mesner, establishing his base offense level at 34. He received a two-level increase for his role as an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor, and a one-level increase for committing the offense in a protected location. A three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility was applied, leading to an adjusted offense level of 34. Mesner was sentenced to 168 months in prison and subsequently appealed.

In his appeal, Mesner contended that the district court incorrectly enhanced his offense level due to his claimed role, arguing that the criminal activity involved fewer than five participants, referencing U.S.S.G. 3B1.1(c). The appellate review standard for such enhancements is clear error, placing the burden on the government to justify the increase. The court found no error, as factors relevant to the adjustment included decision-making authority and participation in the offense. Mesner’s testimony indicated he exercised control over at least four participants in the drug operation, supporting the enhancement.

Additionally, Mesner challenged the district court's drug quantity determination, which is also reviewed for clear error. The standard for clear error is met if the appellate court is firmly convinced a mistake was made, even in the presence of supporting evidence.

For drug manufacturing offenses, the base offense level for a defendant is determined by drug quantity under U.S.S.G. 2D1.1. The Drug Quantity Table outlines specific base offense levels corresponding to various quantities of illegal drugs, with the government required to prove drug quantity by a preponderance of the evidence. In this case, the presentence report (PSR) attributed 315 to 420 grams of actual methamphetamine to Mesner based on his admission of producing approximately 10.5 grams per cook over thirty cooks. Mesner objected to this quantity, claiming it was less due to the production of impure methamphetamine. Upon a timely objection, the court is obligated to rely on evidence rather than solely the PSR.

While Mesner did not contest the total quantity of 315 grams of a methamphetamine mixture, he argued that the actual methamphetamine should be calculated differently. The district court was supposed to apply the percentages of actual methamphetamine from seized samples to the acknowledged quantity. Mesner suggested using 15% of the 315 grams, but the district court failed to apply any of the percentages derived from the varying purities (15%, 17%, and 19%) of the methamphetamine seized. Consequently, the court's calculation was found to be erroneous, leading to the affirmation of the sentence enhancement but a reversal and remand for resentencing to accurately determine the actual methamphetamine attributable to Mesner. The commentary to U.S.S.G. 2D1.1 clarifies the calculation of "methamphetamine (actual)" based on purity levels in mixtures.