What is the test for determining whether a quantity of crack cocaine seized from a person's person and in his apartment was possessed with intent to distribute?

The court is required to make a factual finding as to the quantity of drugs possessed for distribution and cannot include any amount possessed strictly for personal use. United States v. Kipp, 10 F.3d 1463, 1466 (9th Cir.1993). The court cannot apply a mechanical rule that all drugs possessed must be considered relevant at sentencing to the crime of possession with intent to distribute. United States v. Rodriguez-Sanchez, 23 F.3d 1488, 1496 (9th Cir.1994).

The district court determined that all of the crack cocaine found on Washington's person and in his apartment was possessed for distribution. The judge stated the matter was settled by the findings of the jury and reasoned that the other indicia of drug trafficking supported the jury's conclusions. Although the district court failed to make specific findings regarding whether the smaller amounts of crack cocaine found in Washington's apartment were possessed with intent to distribute, the specific finding regarding the 11.4 gram rock was sufficient to place Washington squarely within base level 26. See U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(c)(7) (base level 26 applies to any offense which involves at least five but less than twenty grams of cocaine base). Any error in computing the total amount seized is therefore harmless. See United States v. Galliano, 977 F.2d 1350, 1354 (9th Cir.1992).

6. No Reduction for Acceptance of Responsibility