Sewell v. United States

Background

These petitions asked whether waste byproducts that are not eatable or marketable should count when calculating the weight of a “mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of . . . methamphetamine” under §2D1.1 of the United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines (Nov. 1991). The question arose after federal appeals courts adopted conflicting rules about what to include in weight calculations for methamphetamine cases, producing different results for similarly situated defendants.

Reasoning

The core question was whether non‑ingestible or unmarketable waste should be added to drug weight for sentencing. The opinion notes that the Second, Third, Ninth, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits follow one approach, while the Fifth, First, and Tenth Circuits follow the opposite approach. The Fifth Circuit in United States v. Sherrod adhered to its contrary position and the Supreme Court denied review of that decision, so the Fifth Circuit’s rule remains in effect in that circuit and the national conflict remains unresolved.

Real world impact

Because the Courts of Appeals are split, people convicted of federal methamphetamine offenses may receive very different sentences depending only on which circuit hears their case. The opinion emphasizes that this issue has come before the Court multiple times—denial of review has occurred repeatedly across two Terms—so the dispute is recurring and the practical effects on sentencing are ongoing rather than finally decided.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice White, joined by Justice Blackmun, dissented from the denial of review and urged the Court to resolve the enduring circuit conflict.