United States v. Dimeo

                  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