U.S.S.G. § 2D1.6
Use of Communication Facility in Committing Drug Offense; Attempt or Conspiracy
(a) Base Offense Level: the offense level applicable to the underlying offense.
Commentary
Statutory Provision: 21 U.S.C. § 843(b).Application Note:
1. Where the offense level for the underlying offense is to be determined by reference to §2D1.1, see Application Note 5 of the Commentary to §2D1.1 for guidance in determining the scale of the offense. Note that the Drug Quantity Table in §2D1.1 provides a minimum offense level of 12 where the offense involves heroin (or other Schedule I or II opiates), cocaine (or other Schedule I or II stimulants), cocaine base, PCP, methamphetamine, LSD (or other Schedule I or II hallucinogens), fentanyl (N-phenyl-N-[1-(2-phenylethyl)-4-piperidinyl] propanamide), or fentanyl analogue (§2D1.1(c)(14)); a minimum offense level of 8 where the offense involves flunitrazepam (§2D1.1(c)(16)); and a minimum offense level of 6 otherwise (§2D1.1(c)(17)). Background: This section covers the use of a communication facility in committing a drug offense. A communication facility includes any public or private instrument used in the transmission of writing, signs, signals, pictures, and sound; e.g., telephone, wire, radio.Historical Note: Effective November 1, 1987. Amended effective November 1, 1990 (amendment 320); November 1, 1992 (amendment 447); November 1, 1994 (amendment 505); November 1, 2009 (amendment 737); November 1, 2012 (amendment 770); November 1, 2018 (amendment 807).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27
cases, 1988–2013 · leading case: United States v. Luis Fernando Correa-Vargas, 860 F.2d 35 (2d Cir. 1988).
United States v. Luis Fernando Correa-Vargas, 860 F.2d 35 (2d Cir. 1988). “Sentencing Guidelines § 2D1.6. 1 At the sentencing hearing, Judge Sifton departed from the guideline and imposed the statutory maximum of 48 months, because he considered the quantity of cocaine to be an aggravating circumstance.”
United States v. Michael Begin, 696 F.3d 405 (3rd Cir. 2012). “44 (citing U.S.S.G. § 2D1.6). Begin asked the District Court for a sentence of 120 months, which is the mandatory minimum under § 2422(b) and the maximum penalty he could have faced in Pennsylvania for statutory rape.”
United States v. Kelvin Treavaughn Davis, 912 F.2d 1210 (10th Cir. 1990). “Several courts have held that large quantities of drugs warranted upward departures for similar offenses.”
United States v. Zapata, 589 F.3d 475 (1st Cir. 2009). “He contends that, to determine the maximum applicable to him, we must look first to the guidelines sentencing range that is authorized based exclusively on the facts that he admitted, i.e., that he facilitated a friend’s drug conspiracy by allowing him to use his phone.”
United States v. Domino, 62 F.3d 716 (5th Cir. 1995). “§ 843 (b) — Domino’s offense of conviction— was U.S.S.G. § 2D1.6, which listed a base offense level of twelve.”
United States v. Ryan, Jeremiah, 866 F.2d 604 (3rd Cir. 1989). “Rejecting the defendant’s arguments that such departure was unreasonable under principles of statutory interpretation, the court of appeals held: Based on the clear language of [§ 5K2.”
United States v. Joseph Feekes, 929 F.2d 334 (7th Cir. 1991). “Regarding the extent of the departure, the court noted that the offense level for heroin in excess of twenty-two grams is eighteen under the drug quantity table in U.”
United States v. Kathleen Citro, A/K/A K.C., United States of Am. v. Steven Alonzo, United States of Am. v. Janice Lodato, A/K/A Janet Germana, 938 F.2d 1431 (1st Cir. 1991). “Citro’s base offense level for the telephone count under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.6, as then in effect, was 12.”
United States v. Mertilus, 111 F.3d 870 (11th Cir. 1997). “U.S.S.G. § 2D1.6. Because the underlying crime was cocaine distribution, 21 U.”
United States v. Holley, 82 F.3d 1010 (11th Cir. 1996). “The sentencing guideline applicable to the offense of conviction, U.S.S.G. § 2D1.6, instructs the courts to apply the offense level applicable to the underlying offense, here the drug conspiracy described above.”
United States v. Martinez, 946 F.2d 100 (9th Cir. 1991). “” U.S.S.G. § 2D1.6. The change was "designed to reduce unwarranted disparity by requiring consideration in the guideline of the amount of the controlled substance involved in the offense_” Id.”
United States v. Greer, 375 F. Supp. 2d 790 (E.D. Wis. 2005). “*791 The PSR also recommended a 4 level minimal role reduction under § 3B 1.”
— U.S.S.G. §2D1.6(a) — 7 cases
United States v. Greer, 375 F. Supp. 2d 790 (E.D. Wis. 2005). “*791 The PSR also recommended a 4 level minimal role reduction under § 3B 1.”
United States v. Andrew Kosack, 366 F. App'x 642 (6th Cir. 2010).
United States v. Rodriguez, 64 F.3d 638 (11th Cir. 1995).
United States v. Boyd, 259 F. Supp. 2d 699 (W.D. Tenn. 2003).
United States v. Williams, 302 F. Supp. 2d 945 (E.D. Wis. 2004).
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.