In the 1995 case of Meirl Gilbert Neal v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on an issue related to sentencing guidelines for drug offenses. Neal was convicted of several counts of manufacturing and distributing methamphetamine, with his sentence determined by both the quantity he produced and a separate amount that could have been produced from precursor chemicals found in his possession at arrest time. The question before the court was whether this additional potential quantity should be considered when determining sentences under federal law. The Supreme Court held that it should not be included in such calculations unless there is evidence that converting these precursors into drugs was part of the defendant's plan at arrest time. In other words, mere possession isn't enough; there must also be intent to manufacture more drugs beyond what has already been made or distributed. This decision clarified how federal sentencing guidelines apply to drug cases where defendants are caught with unprocessed ingredients necessary for production but haven't yet used them to make illegal substances.

In the dissenting opinion for MEIRL GILBERT NEAL v. UNITED STATES, Justice Scalia disagreed with the majority's interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). He argued that it was not Congress' intention to punish defendants more harshly for using a firearm during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime if they have been previously convicted of such an offense, regardless whether the prior conviction occurred before or after the current offense. According to him, this interpretation is inconsistent with both common sense and traditional principles of criminal sentencing which dictate that punishment should be proportionate to culpability. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on legislative history as a means of interpreting statutory language when its meaning is clear from its text alone.