U.S. v. Maxwell

In prosecution on drug distribution charge, Dist. Ct. did not commit plain error in admitting testimony of forensic analyst, who opined that substance obtained from defendant was crack cocaine, even though analyst did not personally test said substance, but rather based testimony on raw data generated by colleague of analyst, who did not testify. No Confrontation Clause violation occurred, where analyst relied on information gathered and produced by another analyst and based her independent conclusion after reviewing said data. Moreover, defendant did not deny at trial that substance was crack cocaine. However, limited remand was required for Dist. Ct. to determine it would have entered instant below-guideline, 144-month sentence if it was aware that Fair Sentence Act guidelines applied to defendant’s sentence.