held, testimony about a conspirator’s intentions alone, even without physical evidence, may be sufficient to establish the amount of drugs contemplated as the object of a conspiracy. See United States v. Lam Kwong-Wah, 924 F.2d 298, 305-06 & n. 4 (D.C.Cir.1991). Where there is physical evidence, the case is that much stronger. In sum, the district court did not include the seized PCC in determining the weight of a “mixture or substance” under Application Note 1 to § 2D1.1, but instead used the PCC as evidence to calculate the weight of pure PCP that was the object of Young’s conspiracy, as prescribed by Application Note 12 to § 2D1.1 and Application Note 2 to § 2D1.4. As defendant conceded at oral argument, the latter notes were unaffected by Amendment 484. See Allison, 63 F.3d at 353 (<HOLDING>). For that reason, Young’s motion to reduce his
holding that amendment 484 does not speak to the situation in which the district court is sentencing the defendant based on the size and capability of the laboratory involved holding that heightened evidentiary standard of proof is not required where the sentencing enhancement is based entirely on the extent of the conspiracy to which the defendant pled guilty holding that a district court may not impose a sentencing enhancement based on conduct of which the jury acquitted the defendant holding that the fourteenth amendment does not apply to the district of columbia holding that the district court should not have considered a  2255 petition based on an alleged misapplication of the sentencing guidelines