Affirmation of Drug-Purity Calculation and Organizer-Leader Enhancement in Sentencing Guidelines

Introduction

United States v. Glenn Long arises from a federal indictment in Camden, New Jersey, charging Glenn Long (“Long”) with six counts related to a methamphetamine and fentanyl distribution conspiracy. In February 2022, Long pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 846, stipulating that the group possessed 2,759 grams of 98%-pure methamphetamine plus over 400 grams of fentanyl mixtures. The key issues on appeal are: (1) whether the district court correctly used the purity-adjusted weight of methamphetamine to calculate the base offense level under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 2D1.1(c)(2); (2) whether a four-level organizer/leader adjustment under § 3B1.1(a) was appropriate; and (3) whether the sentence of 216 months—below the Guidelines range—was substantively reasonable. Long contends that the purity calculation overstated his culpability, that he was not a leader or organizer of at least five people, and that the district court failed to justify its chosen variance.

Summary of the Judgment

The Third Circuit affirmed. It held that:

The district court permissibly calculated the base offense level using the actual weight of methamphetamine (2,759 g × 98% = ~2.70 kg), placing Long at level 36 under § 2D1.1(c)(2). There was no abuse of discretion in refusing to “dilute” the weight for policy reasons.
The four-level enhancement for organizer/leader (§ 3B1.1(a)) was properly applied. Multiple co-equal organizers may exist, and the adjustment does not require that one person manage five others.
The 216-month sentence—76 months below the Guidelines range—was substantively reasonable. The court considered Long’s variance arguments, including sentencing disparities, and acted well within the bounds of its § 3553(a) discretion.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

United States v. Nasir, 17 F.4th 459 (3d Cir. 2021) (en banc): affirmed that the district court may rely on either actual-drug weight or conversion tables when both yield the same base level. Here, even absent a conversion, the amount of actual methamphetamine sufficed for level 36.
United States v. Adair, 38 F.4th 341 (3d Cir. 2022): clarified the definitions of “organizer” and “leader” under § 3B1.1(a). The panel in Long applied Adair to conclude that multiple leaders may coexist, and minimum headcount is not strict.
United States v. Helbling, 209 F.3d 226 (3d Cir. 2000): held that a defendant may count as one of the five participants to trigger the organizer/leader enhancement. Long’s conspiracy easily met the “five or more” threshold once he was counted.
United States v. Denmark, 13 F.4th 315 (3d Cir. 2021): under the “abuse of discretion” standard, an upward or downward Guidelines adjustment must reflect a “definite and firm conviction” of error. The court found no such conviction here.
United States v. Napolitan, 762 F.3d 297 (3d Cir. 2014): reaffirmed that sentencing enhancements stand unless expressly prohibited by the Guidelines. The Long panel cited Napolitan for the principle that “double counting” is permissible absent explicit prohibition.
United States v. Seibert, 971 F.3d 396 (3d Cir. 2020) (amended 991 F.3d 1313): held that simultaneous application of § 2D1.1 (drug quantity) and § 3B1.1 (role enhancement) is allowed because the Guidelines do not forbid it.
United States v. Lacerda, 958 F.3d 196 (3d Cir. 2020): explained that a variance is substantively unreasonable only if “no reasonable sentencing court” would impose the same below-Guidelines sentence for the reasons given. Long’s arguments fell short under Lacerda.

Legal Reasoning

1. Punishment Based on Drug Purity (§ 2D1.1)
The Guidelines’ Drug Quantity Table distinguishes “methamphetamine (actual)”—the pure weight of the substance—via Note (B). The district court multiplied 2,759 g by 98% purity to get ~2.70 kg, which falls between 1.5 kg and 4.5 kg, yielding base level 36. Section 2D1.1(c)(4) allows a four-level reduction if “it is impossible to determine the drug quantity,” but here the stipulation made a determination straightforward. Long’s policy objections—that purity ratios are outdated—do not override the text and binding commentary of the Guidelines.

2. Organizer/Leader Enhancement (§ 3B1.1(a))
An adjustment of +4 applies if the defendant “was an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor” in “a criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive.” Long argued that he was no more culpable than two co-conspirators and that there were fewer than five participants under his control. The court explained that multiple leaders may exist, and the “five or more participants” requirement includes the defendant himself. Thus, the enhancement comported with both text and Third Circuit precedents.

3. Double Counting Doctrine
Long claimed that using purity to increase the base level and then applying a leadership enhancement amounted to impermissible double counting. The court relied on Seibert and Napolitan to hold that “double counting is permissible so long as the Guidelines do not explicitly prohibit simultaneous application.”

4. Reasonableness and Variance (§ 3553(a))
Finally, Long attacked the substantive reasonableness of his 216-month term. The district court considered his policy objections and sentencing-disparity argument under § 3553(a)(6), then granted a 76-month variance. Under the abuse-of-discretion standard (Denmark; Lacerda), and absent any procedural misstep, the Third Circuit found no reason to disturb the below-Guidelines sentence.

Impact

United States v. Glenn Long reinforces several critical points for future sentencing:

Courts must apply the purity-adjusted drug weight when the parties’ stipulations or facts allow a precise calculation.
The organizer/leader enhancement can be applied to multiple individuals in the same conspiracy, and a strict headcount is not required beyond five participants (including the defendant).
Simultaneous application of drug-quantity and role-based enhancements is permissible absent explicit prohibition.
Policy objections to Sentencing Guidelines formulas do not suffice to override the text and binding commentary; legislative reform—not judicial variance—is the proper vehicle for change.
Downward variances under § 3553(a) will be upheld unless no reasonable court would make the same decision on substantially similar facts.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Base Offense Level: A starting point in the Guidelines determined by factors like drug type, quantity, and purity.
Downward Variance: A below-Guidelines sentence imposed when a judge finds extra-Guidelines factors justify a lower term.
Organizer/Leader Adjustment: An added number of levels if the defendant organized or led a conspiracy or group.
Double Counting: Applying two overlapping sentencing enhancements; allowed unless the Guidelines expressly forbid it.
Abuse of Discretion: The standard of review on appeal; the appellate court will not overturn unless it has a “definite and firm conviction” of error.

Conclusion

United States v. Glenn Long clarifies and reaffirms the Sentencing Guidelines’ treatment of drug purity and leadership enhancements. It confirms that judges must follow the text and commentary of the Guidelines when stipulations or evidence permit precise drug-quantity determinations, that multiple organizers may each receive enhancements, and that district courts retain broad discretion to vary sentence lengths under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). This decision will guide lower courts and practitioners in navigating purity calculations, role enhancements, and substantive-reasonableness challenges in future drug-trafficking cases.