United States v. Loesel, No. 12-3543 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his sentence stemming from his conviction for conspiring to manufacture and distribute at least 50 grams of actual methamphetamine and 500 grams of meth mixture or substance. The court concluded that the district court did not err in applying a sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(b)(13)(C)(ii) for creating a substantial risk of harm to human life or the environment because of the meth farm's rural location; the district court did not clearly err in attributing to defendant his girlfriend's pseudoephedrine purchases where, in light of their extensive joint meth use and pseudoephedrine distribution, it was reasonably foreseeable to defendant that his girlfriend would purchase pseudoephedrine from pharmacies; and the district court did not err in using information in the proffer agreement to determine his guideline range. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. District court did not err in imposing an enhancement under Guidelines Sec. 2D1.1(b)(13) for creating a risk of harm to human life or the environment; no error in attributing to defendant pseudoephedrine purchased by his girlfriend as the purchases were reasonably foreseeable to him given the couple's joint efforts and her role in the conspiracy; district court did not err in considering information from defendant's proffer as the plea agreement permitted use of the information to rebut any factual position defendant took at sentencing.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.