Holst

MEMORANDUM *

Dirk Olsen Holst appeals an order of the district court denying his motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2). Holst contends that the district court erred by failing to apply Amendment 484 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (“USSG”) to his case. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Although Holst’s sentence was based on three drug-quantity determinations, the district court relied primarily on the production capacity of the beer keg in denying Holst’s motion to reduce his sentence. 1 Where there is “ ‘no drug seizure or the amount seized does not reflect the scale of the offense,’ the sentencing court is allowed to ‘approximate the quantity of the controlled substance.’ ” United States v. Basinger, 60 F.3d 1400, 1409 (9th Cir.1995) (quoting USSG § 2D1.1, cmt. n. 12). The sentencing court therefore may “calculate ‘potential’ methamphetamine based on seized precursor chemicals” or rely on “expert testimony that estimates production capability, even when the expert must assume the availability of precursor chemicals that were not seized or were found in short supply.” Id.

*719 The…