Whether the purity of methamphetamine, linked to Owens's conspiracy solely by personnel, permitted an inference that Owens's methamphetamine was similarly pure

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW At his sentencing, Owens was held responsible for methamphetamine (actual). The only evidence of the methamphetamine’s purity was the purity of methamphetamine seized from Owens’s co-conspirator’s co-conspirator, well after Owens’s arrest. Despite the lack of evidence, neither trial nor appellate counsel objected to the purity finding. Owens filed a motion to vacate his sentence based on his counsels’ ineffectiveness. The courts and parties below assumed that prior counsel was ineffective and that if Owens showed a reasonable probability of prevailing on a purity objection, his sentence would have been lower. Thus, the sole issue is: Whether the purity of methamphetamine, linked to Owens’s conspiracy solely by personnel, permitted an inference that Owens’s methamphetamine was similarly pure. i