United States v. Dimeo

USCA1 Opinion










UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT


____________________

No. 93-2272
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v.

PAUL DIMEO,

Defendant, Appellant.


____________________


APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

[Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge]
___________________


____________________


Before

Selya, Circuit Judge,
_____________

Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________

and Cyr, Circuit Judge.
_____________


____________________



John A. Ciraldo, with whom Perkins, Thompson, Hinckley & Keddy
________________ ____________________________________
was on brief for appellant.
Michael M. DuBose, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom
__________________
Jay P. McCloskey, United States Attorney, was on brief for appellee.
________________



____________________

July 7, 1994

____________________


















CYR, Circuit Judge. After the district court, acting
CYR, Circuit Judge
_____________

sua sponte, reduced its original sentence in response to a recent
___ ______

amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines, see United States Sen-
___

tencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, 2D1.1, comment.
___________________

(backg'd.) (Nov. 1993), defendant Paul Dimeo appealed the revised

sentence on the ground that the district court erred in not

reducing the prison term below the minimum mandated by statute.

Finding no error, we affirm.

Appellant Dimeo pled guilty to conspiring to distribute

more than one gram of lysergic acid diethylamide ("LSD"). See 21
___

U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and 846. For purposes of determining both

the statutory mandatory minimum sentence ("MMS"), see 21 U.S.C.
___

841(b)(1)(B)(v) (prescribing five-year MMS for distributing "1

gram or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable

amount of [LSD]"), and the applicable Guideline sentencing range

("GSR"), see U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(c) (Nov. 1991),1 the district
___

court included the entire weight of the paper carrier medium used

in distributing the 900 LSD doses. See Chapman v. United States,
___ _______ _____________

500 U.S. 453 (1991) (construing "mixture or substance," in 21

U.S.C. 841(b), as "requir[ing] the weight of the carrier medium

to be included"). The 63-month prison term originally imposed

under the Guidelines (BOL: 26; CHC: I; GSR: 63-78 months)

trumped the five-year MMS under 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(B)(v) for



____________________

1See United States v. Dimeo, 753 F. Supp. 23, 26 (D. Me.
___ ______________ _____
1990), aff'd, 946 F.2d 880 (1st Cir. 1991) (table).
_____

2















distributing one gram or more of LSD. See U.S.S.G. 5G1.1(c).
___

Effective November 1, 1993, however, the Sentencing

Commission amended U.S.S.G. 2D1.1, see 28 U.S.C. 944(p), by
___

prescribing a less stringent (0.4 milligram per-dose) formula for

calculating LSD quantity than the regime previously upheld in

Chapman. See U.S.S.G. 2D1.1, comment. (backg'd.) (Nov. 1993)
_______ ___

(hereinafter, "Amendment 488"). As the Commission provided that

Amendment 488 may be given retroactive effect consistent with 18

U.S.C. 3582(c)(2),2 see United States v. Boot, F.3d ,
___ _____________ ____ ___ ____ _

(1st Cir. 1994) [No. 93-2317, slip op. at 3-4 (1st Cir. June 7,

1994)], the district court later reduced the LSD quantity for

Guidelines sentencing purposes from 6.25 grams to 0.36 of a gram,

and the GSR to 21-27 months, but did not reduce Dimeo's sentence

below the five-year MMS, and Dimeo appealed.3


____________________

2Section 3582(c)(2) provides that the district court, on its
own motion, may reduce a sentence imposed under the Sentencing
___
Guidelines if "such a reduction is consistent with applicable
__
policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission." 18
U.S.C. 3582(c)(2).

3On November 1, 1993, the United States Probation Office
recommended a reduction in Dimeo's guideline sentence pursuant to
Amendment 488 but advised against any reduction in the five-year
MMS. The district court received no input from the parties and
conducted no hearing. Dimeo's former counsel, even though not
reappointed until after the district court had entered its
___________
revised sentence on November 15, 1993, nevertheless alertly
contacted the clerk of the district court on October 27, 1993,
inquiring as to the procedure for resolving issues relating to
any reduction in Dimeo's sentence. For whatever reason, the
record on appeal reflects no written or oral presentation from
Dimeo in the district court either before or after the sentence
reduction. Thus, the claims Dimeo asserts on appeal were never
presented to the district court, and are deemed waived. United
______
States v. Elwell, 984 F.2d 1289, 1298 (1st Cir.) (claims not
______ ______

3















On appeal, Dimeo claims for the first time that by

permitting Amendment 488 to take effect Congress signaled its

intention that LSD weight be calculated under a unitary method

for both GSR and MMS purposes, thereby implicitly overruling

Chapman.4 Further, also for the first time, Dimeo asserts a
_______

constitutional challenge to the coexistence of these two diver-

gent regimes for determining LSD quantity, as violative of due

process and equal protection. Even if these claims were not

deemed waived in the district court for failure to raise them

either before or after entry of the revised judgment, see supra
___ _____

note 3, they fail for other reasons.

A sentence reduction pursuant to Amendment 488 is

expressly conditioned on conformance with 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2),

which confers no power on the district court to reduce a minimum

sentence mandated by statute. Furthermore, as discussed in Boot,
____

slip op. at 7, a MMS reduction would exceed the power conferred

upon the district court under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2), see supra
___ _____



____________________

raised in district court are waived), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct.
_____ ______
2429 (1993).

4This claim is foreclosed by our recent decision in Boot,
____
slip op. at 7. We note, further, that the constitutional chal-
lenge belatedly asserted by appellant may entail considerable
risk. Chapman conclusively establishes the constitutionality of
_______
the "mixture or substance" methodology for MMS purposes. Id.
___
Were a court to conclude that the "mixture or substance" method-
ology and the 0.4 milligram per-dose formula cannot coexist
constitutionally, it seems virtually certain that Amendment 488,
rather than the "mixture or substance" methodology upheld in
Chapman, would be struck down, and with it the Guidelines sen-
_______
tence reduction. But see infra at pp. 4-5.
___ ___ _____

4















note 2, since it would be inconsistent with the Sentencing

Commission policy statement accompanying Amendment 488: "None-

theless, this [new Guidelines] approach does not override the

applicability of 'mixture or substance' for the purpose of

applying any mandatory minimum sentence (see Chapman; 5G1.1(b)-
___ _______

)." U.S.S.G. 2D1.1, comment. (backg'd.). See also Boot, slip
___ ____ ____

op. at 7.

Affirmed.
Affirmed.
________





































5