for 300 grams of heroin, and because, in any event, she was a broker and not a dealer, we find that the district court correctly held her accountable for the higher amount originally contemplated. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 n. 12 (“In an offense involving an agreement to sell a controlled substance, the agreed-upon quantity of the controlled substance shall be used to determine the offense level unless the sale is completed and the amount delivered more accurately reflects the scale of the offense .... [I]n a reverse sting, the agreed-upon quantity of the controlled substance would more accurately reflect the scale of the offense because the amount actually delivered is controlled by the government----” (emphasis added)); see also United States v. Ynfante, 78 F.3d 677, 681 (D.C.Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Podlog, 35 F.3d 699, 707 (2d
holding that the principal is liable for an agents acts committed within the scope of the agents employment holding that apprendi is not implicated where the defendant has stipulated to the amount of drugs for which he was held responsible and the district court did not rely on any fact outside of the plea agreement to determine drug quantity at sentencing holding that the sentencing court erred in failing to make a factual determination as to the amount of drugs attributable to the defendant after his participation in the charged conspiracy holding that the quantity of drugs that the defendant had originally agreed to sell to undercover agents was attributable to him notwithstanding the fact that at the agents request he ultimately agreed to complete the deal for a lesser amount holding that the quantity of drugs negotiated was properly attributed to the broker even though the seller ultimately could not supply the requested amount