The following excerpt is from U.S. v. Ector, 925 F.2d 1471 (9th Cir. 1991):
Appellant first argues that the district court should have excluded some of the cocaine base from the amount it used to determine his base offense level because it was for personal use and not for sale. While there was evidence that some of the base could have been for personal use, defendant has utterly failed to carry his burden of showing the district court's contrary finding--that all the drugs were possessed by defendant as part of a common scheme--was clearly erroneous. See United States v. Turner, 898 F.2d 705, 710-11, (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 110 S.Ct. 2574 (1990).
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.