(a) Base Offense Level (Apply the greater):
(1)
3 plus the offense level from the Drug Quantity Table in §2D1.1; or
(2)
20.
(b) Specific Offense Characteristic
(A) If the offense involved the manufacture of amphetamine or methamphetamine, increase by 3 levels. If the resulting offense level is less than level 27, increase to level 27.
(B) If the offense (i) involved the manufacture of amphetamine or methamphetamine; and (ii) created a substantial risk of harm to the life of a minor or an incompetent, increase by 6 levels. If the resulting offense level is less than level 30, increase to level 30.
Commentary
Statutory Provision:
21 U.S.C. § 858.
Application Note:
1.
Substantial Risk of Harm Associated with the Manufacture of Amphetamine and Methamphetamine.—
(A) Factors to Consider.—In determining, for purposes of subsection (b)(1)(B), whether the offense created a substantial risk of harm to the life of a minor or an incompetent, the court shall include consideration of the following factors:
(i) The quantity of any chemicals or hazardous or toxic substances found at the laboratory, and the manner in which the chemicals or substances were stored.
(ii) The manner in which hazardous or toxic substances were disposed, and the likelihood of release into the environment of hazardous or toxic substances.
(iii) The duration of the offense, and the extent of the manufacturing operation.
(iv) The location of the laboratory (e.g., whether the laboratory is located in a residential neighborhood or a remote area), and the number of human lives placed at substantial risk of harm.
(B) Definitions.—For purposes of subsection (b)(1)(B):
"Incompetent" means an individual who is incapable of taking care of the individual's self or property because of a mental or physical illness or disability, mental retardation, or senility.
"Minor" has the meaning given that term in Application Note 1 of the Commentary to §2A3.1 (Criminal Sexual Abuse).
: Subsection (b)(1) implements the instruction to the Commission in section 102 of Public Law 106–310.
Historical Note: Effective November 1, 1989 (amendment 140). Amended effective November 1, 1992 (amendment 447); December 16, 2000 (amendment 608); November 1, 2001 (amendment 620).
Notes of Decisions
United States v. Darrell Eversole, 487 F.3d 1024 (6th Cir. 2007).
· cites it 5× “The defendant argues first that his Sentencing Guidelines range was overstated because the district court engaged in double counting, which is inherent in the prescribed application of U.S.S.G. § 2D1.10. He believes that because section 2D1.”
United States v. Michael Archer, 362 F. App'x 491 (6th Cir. 2010).
· cites it 9× “The court then added an additional three-point enhancement, based on USSG § 2D1.10, because Archer had endangered life while manufacturing methamphetamine.”
United States v. Evans, 318 F.3d 1011 (10th Cir. 2003).
· cites it 3× “Evans, the district court should have applied USSG § 2D1.10 rather than USSG § 2D1.1. Finally, Mr.”
United States v. Anthony Howard, 454 F.3d 700 (7th Cir. 2006).
“l(a)(l), a three-level increase for endangering human life, see U.S.S.G. § 2D1.10(b)(1)(B), or simply imposing life imprisonment, the statutory maximum, see U.”
United States v. Donald Keith Kroeger, 229 F.3d 700 (8th Cir. 2000).
“Applying U.S.S.G. § 2D1.10(a)(l), the PSR calculated a base offense level of *702 35 by adding 3 to the level 32 specified in the drug-quantity table, U.”
United States v. Silvio Gomez, 164 F.3d 1354 (11th Cir. 1999).
“This resulted in a base offense level of twenty-eight, see U.S.S.G. § 2D1.10(c)(6), to which two points were added for obstruction of justice, resulting in a total offense level of thirty.”
United States v. Steven D. Loos & Lorna Jo Taylor, 165 F.3d 504 (7th Cir. 1998).
“Although Loos and Taylor were convicted of attempting to manufacture methamphetamine, they were sentenced under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.10, the guideline applicable to endangering human life while manufacturing a controlled substance.”
United States v. Frost, 195 F. App'x 156 (4th Cir. 2006).
“USSG § 2D1.10(b)(l)(B). The district court awarded Frost a three-level adjustment for acceptance of responsibility, USSG § 3E1.”
— U.S.S.G. §2D1.10(a) — 2 cases
— U.S.S.G. §2D1.10(a)(1) — 3 cases
— U.S.S.G. §2D1.10(a)(l) — 3 cases
United States v. Darrell Eversole, 487 F.3d 1024 (6th Cir. 2007).
“The defendant argues first that his Sentencing Guidelines range was overstated because the district court engaged in double counting, which is inherent in the prescribed application of U.S.S.G. § 2D1.10. He believes that because section 2D1.”
United States v. Donald Keith Kroeger, 229 F.3d 700 (8th Cir. 2000).
“Applying U.S.S.G. § 2D1.10(a)(l), the PSR calculated a base offense level of *702 35 by adding 3 to the level 32 specified in the drug-quantity table, U.”
— U.S.S.G. §2D1.10(b)(1)(A) — 1 case
— U.S.S.G. §2D1.10(b)(1)(B) — 3 cases
United States v. Anthony Howard, 454 F.3d 700 (7th Cir. 2006).
“l(a)(l), a three-level increase for endangering human life, see U.S.S.G. § 2D1.10(b)(1)(B), or simply imposing life imprisonment, the statutory maximum, see U.”
— U.S.S.G. §2D1.10(b)(l) — 1 case
— U.S.S.G. §2D1.10(b)(l)(A) — 1 case
United States v. Darrell Eversole, 487 F.3d 1024 (6th Cir. 2007).
“The defendant argues first that his Sentencing Guidelines range was overstated because the district court engaged in double counting, which is inherent in the prescribed application of U.S.S.G. § 2D1.10. He believes that because section 2D1.”
— U.S.S.G. §2D1.10(b)(l)(B) — 2 cases
United States v. Frost, 195 F. App'x 156 (4th Cir. 2006).
“USSG § 2D1.10(b)(l)(B). The district court awarded Frost a three-level adjustment for acceptance of responsibility, USSG § 3E1.”
— U.S.S.G. §2D1.10(c)(6) — 1 case
United States v. Silvio Gomez, 164 F.3d 1354 (11th Cir. 1999).
“This resulted in a base offense level of twenty-eight, see U.S.S.G. § 2D1.10(c)(6), to which two points were added for obstruction of justice, resulting in a total offense level of thirty.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.