The federal sentencing system’s longstanding 10:1 ratio— treating pure (“actual”) methamphetamine ten times more
harshly than meth “mixture”—is under serious fire. In United States v. Bean (D.N.H. 2019), the court laid out one of the
clearest judicial rebukes of this approach, and its reasoning has since guided reforms and ongoing policy changes.
A Flawed Assumption. In Bean, the defendant pleaded guilty to distributing at least 500 grams of actual methamphetamine. Under the federal drug guidelines, “100 grams of actual meth” equals “1,000 grams of meth mixture,” triggering a harsher sentence under the 10:1 purity ratio—even though both involved the same conduct.
The court bluntly pointed out:
“There appears to be no empirical basis for … the harsher treatment of offenses involving higher purity methamphetamine… purity is no longer an accurate indicator of… role in a drug‑trafficking conspiracy…”
Bean’s courts also noted that the guidelines caused unwarranted disparities compared to sentences for other drugs.
Recognizing their authority post-Booker, the judge in Bean did something bold:
Calculated the base offense using the harsh 10:1 rule;
Recalculated using the lower mixture-only standard;
Choose the sentence that best matches the real-world culpability, guided by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Since then, many district judges have followed that path, treating meth purity as a technical detail, not a measure of criminal intent.
Sentencing Commission Steps In — But Delays Action
In January 2025, the U.S. Sentencing Commission formally proposed removing all purity references from § 2D1.1. Public input was accepted through March. But in April, the Commission tabled the reform for further review in the 2026 amendment cycle, per a notice explaining that purities remain a priority but need more data and commentary.
This means that while action has been delayed, the official aim is still to abolish the 10:1 disparity. That could be as soon as next year when the Commission meets—and it may enable retroactive sentence reductions under § 3582(c)(2).
What This Means Now
If you were sentenced under the old ratio, you may already be eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction, especially if courts
have rejected purity-based math. If you’re currently facing meth charges, you can argue, citing Bean and pending reforms, that your sentence should be based on mixture only.
And once the amendments take effect—likely late 2026—and if deemed retroactive, many more could have their sentences reduced.
Bottom Line
United States v. Bean showed that punishing people based on drug chemistry, not criminal conduct, is fundamentally unfair. Courts have acted, and the Sentencing Commission is positioned to formalize what’s already happening in the courtroom.
If you or a loved one is affected by meth-related sentencing under the old ratio, now is the time to act on fairness and rebuild a sentence based on responsibility, not molecular weight.
Need help analyzing your case, preparing a § 3582 motion, or exploring guideline reforms? Contact our office today.
