Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/519/148
Timestamp: 2013-12-10 10:41:05
Document Index: 432949837

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 2', '§ 1', '§ 3661', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 3661', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 994', '§ 944', '§ 6', '§ 3661', '§ 3661', '§ 2', '§ 994']

UNITED STATES v. Vernon WATTS. UNITED STATES v. Cheryl PUTRA. | Supreme Court | LII / Legal Information Institute
Supreme Court aboutsearch liibulletin subscribe previews UNITED STATES v. Vernon WATTS. UNITED STATES v. Cheryl PUTRA.
519 U.S. 148117 S.Ct. 633136 L.Ed.2d 554 (519 U.S. 148117 S.Ct. 633136 L.Ed.2d 554, 519 U.S. 148117 S.Ct. 633136 L.Ed.2d 554)
UNITED STATES v. Vernon WATTS. UNITED STATES v. Cheryl PUTRA.
Decided: Jan. 6, 1997.
In these two cases, two panels of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that sentencing courts could not consider conduct of the defendants underlying charges of which they had been acquitted. United States v. Watts, 67 F.3d 790 (C.A.9 1995) (''Watts ''); United States v. Putra, 78 F.3d 1386 (C.A.9 1996) (''Putra ''). Every other Court of Appeals has held that a sentencing court may do so, if the Government establishes that conduct by a preponderance of the evidence.
The Government filed a single petition for certiorari seeking review of both cases, pursuant to this Court's Rule 12.4, to resolve this split. Because the panels' holdings conflict with the clear implications of 18 U.S.C. 3661, the Sentencing Guidelines, and this Court's decisions, particularly Witte v. United States, 515 U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 2199, 132 L.Ed.2d 351 (1995), we grant the petition and reverse in both cases.
In Watts, police discovered cocaine base in a kitchen cabinet and two loaded guns and ammunition hidden in a bedroom closet of Watts' house. A jury convicted Watts of possessing cocaine base with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), but acquitted him of using a firearm in relation to a drug offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c). Despite Watts' acquittal on the firearms count, the District Court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Watts had possessed the guns in connection with the drug offense. In calculating Watts' sentence, the court therefore added two points to his base offense level under United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(b)(1) (Nov.1995) (USSG). The Court of Appeals vacated the sentence, holding that ''a sentencing judge may not, 'under any standard of proof,' rely on facts of which the defendant was acquitted.'' 67 F.3d, at 797 (quoting United States v. Brady, 928 F.2d 844, 851, and n. 12 (C.A.9 1991), abrogated on other grounds, Nichols v. United States, 511 U.S. 738, 114 S.Ct. 1921, 128 L.Ed.2d 745 (1994)) (emphasis added in Watts ). The Government argued that the District Court could have enhanced Watts' sentence without considering facts ''necessarily rejected'' by the jury's acquittal on the § 924(c) charge because the sentencing enhancement did not require a connection between the firearm and the predicate offense, whereas § 924(c) did. The court rejected this argument, stated that both the enhancement and § 924(c) involved such a connection, and held that the District Court had impermissibly ''reconsidered facts that the jury necessarily rejected by its acquittal of the defendant on another count.'' 67 F.3d, at 796.
In Putra, authorities had videotaped two transactions in which Putra and a codefendant (a major drug dealer) sold cocaine to a government informant. The indictment charged Putra with, among other things, one count of aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute one ounce of cocaine on May 8, 1992; and a second count of aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute five ounces of cocaine on May 9, 1992, both in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. The jury convicted Putra on the first count but acquitted her on the second. At sentencing, however, the District Court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Putra had indeed been involved in the May 9 transaction. The District Court explained that the second sale was relevant conduct under USSG § 1B1.3, and it therefore calculated Putra's base offense level under the Guidelines by aggregating the amounts of both sales. As in Watts, the Court of Appeals vacated and remanded for resentencing. Reasoning that the jury's verdict of acquittal manifested an ''explicit rejection'' of Putra's involvement in the May 9 transaction, the Court of Appeals held that ''allowing an increase in Putra's sentence would be effectively punishing her for an offense for which she has been acquitted.'' 78 F.3d, at 1389. The panel explained that it was imposing ''a judicial limitation on the facts the district court may consider at sentencing, beyond any limitation imposed by the Guidelines.'' Ibid. Then-Chief Judge Wallace dissented, arguing that the panel's ''sweeping language contradicts the Guidelines, our practice prior to enactment of the Guidelines, decisions of other circuits, and recent Supreme Court authority.'' Id., at 1390.
We begin our analysis with 18 U.S.C. 3661, which codifies the longstanding principle that sentencing courts have broad discretion to consider various kinds of information. The statute states:
We reiterated this principle in Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 69 S.Ct. 1079, 93 L.Ed. 1337 (1949), in which a defendant convicted of murder and sentenced to death challenged the sentencing court's reliance on information that the defendant had been involved in 30 burglaries of which he had not been convicted. We contrasted the different limitations on presentation of evidence at trial and at sentencing: ''Highly relevant-if not essential-to the judge's selection of an appropriate sentence is the possession of the fullest information possible concerning the defendant's life and characteristics.'' Id., at 247, 69 S.Ct., at 1083 (footnote omitted); see Nichols, supra, at 747, 114 S.Ct., at 1928 (noting that sentencing courts have traditionally and constitutionally ''considered a defendant's past criminal behavior, even if no conviction resulted from that behavior'') (citing Williams, supra ); BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. ----, ---- n. 19, 116 S.Ct. 1589, 1597 n. 19, 134 L.Ed.2d 809 (1996) (''A sentencing judge may even consider past criminal behavior which did not result in a conviction'') (citing Williams, supra ). Neither the broad language of § 3661 nor our holding in Williams suggests any basis for the courts to invent a blanket prohibition against considering certain types of evidence at sentencing. Indeed, under the pre-Guidelines sentencing regime, it was ''well established that a sentencing judge may take into account facts introduced at trial relating to other charges, even ones of which the defendant has been acquitted.'' United States v. Donelson, 695 F.2d 583, 590 (C.A.D.C.1982) (Scalia, J.).
The Guidelines did not alter this aspect of the sentencing court's discretion. '' 'Very roughly speaking, relevant conduct corresponds to those actions and circumstances that courts typically took into account when sentencing prior to the Guidelines' enactment.' '' Witte, supra, at ----, 115 S.Ct., at 2207 (quoting United States v. Wright, 873 F.2d 437, 441 (C.A.1 1989) (Breyer, J.)). Section 1B1.4 of the Guidelines reflects the policy set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3661:
''In determining the sentence to impose within the guideline range, or whether a departure from the guidelines is warranted, the court may consider, without limitation, any information concerning the background, character and conduct of the defendant, unless otherwise prohibited by law. See 18 U.S.C. 3661.''
Section 1B1.3, in turn, describes in sweeping language the conduct that a sentencing court may consider in determining the applicable guideline range. The commentary to that section states: ''Conduct that is not formally charged or is not an element of the offense of conviction may enter into the determination of the applicable guideline sentencing range.'' USSG § 1B1.3 comment., backg'd. With respect to certain offenses, such as Putra's drug conviction, USSG § 1B1.3(a)(2) requires the sentencing court to consider ''all acts and omissions . . . that were part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction.'' Application Note 3 explains that ''application of this provision does not require the defendant, in fact, to have been convicted of multiple counts.'' The Note also gives the following example:
''Where the defendant engaged in three drug sales of 10, 15, and 20 grams of cocaine, as part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan, subsection (a)(2) provides that the total quantity of cocaine involved (45 grams) is to be used to determine the offense level even if the defendant is convicted of a single count charging only one of the sales.''
Accordingly, the Guidelines conclude that ''relying on the entire range of conduct, regardless of the number of counts that are alleged or on which a conviction is obtained, appears to be the most reasonable approach to writing workable guidelines for these offenses.'' USSG § 1B1.3 comment., backg'd (emphasis added).
Although the dissent concedes that a district court may properly consider ''evidence adduced in a trial that resulted in an acquittal'' when choosing a particular sentence within a guideline range, it argues that the court must close its eyes to acquitted conduct at earlier stages of the sentencing process because the ''broadly inclusive language of § 3661'' is incorporated only into § 1B1.4 of the Guidelines. This argument ignores § 1B1.3 which, as we have noted, directs sentencing courts to consider all other related conduct, whether or not it resulted in a conviction. The dissent also contends that because Congress instructed the Sentencing Commission, in 28 U.S.C. 994(l ), to ensure that the Guidelines provide incremental punishment for a defendant who is convicted of multiple offenses, it could not have meant for the Guidelines to increase a sentence based on offenses of which a defendant has been acquitted. Post, at __. The statute is not, however, ''cast in restrictive or exclusive terms.'' United States v. Ebbole, 917 F.2d 1495, 1501 (C.A.7 1990). Far from limiting a sentencing court's power to consider uncharged or acquitted conduct, § 994(l ) simply ensures that, at a minimum, the Guidelines provide additional penalties when defendants are convicted of multiple offenses. Ibid. If we accepted the dissent's logic, § 944(l ) would prohibit a district court from considering acquitted conduct for any sentencing purposes, whether for setting the guidelines range or for choosing a sentence within that range-a novel proposition that the dissent itself does not defend. Post, at __. In short, we are convinced that a sentencing court may consider conduct of which a defendant has been acquitted.
The Court of Appeals' position to the contrary not only conflicts with the implications of the Guidelines, but it also seems to be based on erroneous views of our double jeopardy jurisprudence. The Court of Appeals asserted that, when a sentencing court considers facts underlying a charge on which the jury returned a verdict of not guilty, the defendant '' 'suffers punishment for a criminal charge for which he or she was acquitted.' '' Watts, 67 F.3d. at 797 (quoting Brady, 928 F.2d, at 851). As we explained in Witte, however, sentencing enhancements do not punish a defendant for crimes of which he was not convicted, but rather increase his sentence because of the manner in which he committed the crime of conviction. 515 U.S., at ----, 115 S.Ct., at 2207-2208. In Witte, we held that a sentencing court could, consistent with the Double Jeopardy Clause, consider uncharged cocaine importation in imposing a sentence on marijuana charges that was within the statutory range, without precluding the defendant's subsequent prosecution for the cocaine offense. We concluded that ''consideration of information about the defendant's character and conduct at sentencing does not result in 'punishment' for any offense other than the one of which the defendant was convicted.'' Id., at ----, 115 S.Ct., at 2207. Rather, the defendant is ''punished only for the fact that the present offense was carried out in a manner that warrants increased punishment . . . . '' Id., at ----, 115 S.Ct., at 2207-2208; see also Nichols, 511 U.S., at 747, 114 S.Ct., at ----.
''An acquittal is not a finding of any fact. An acquittal can only be an acknowledgment that the government failed to prove an essential element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Without specific jury findings, no one can logically or realistically draw any factual finding inferences . . . . '' 78 F.3d, at 1394.
For these reasons, ''an acquittal in a criminal case does not preclude the Government from relitigating an issue when it is presented in a subsequent action governed by a lower standard of proof.'' Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342, 349, 110 S.Ct. 668, 672, 107 L.Ed.2d 708 (1990). The Guidelines state that it is ''appropriate'' that facts relevant to sentencing be proved by a preponderance of the evidence, USSG § 6A1.3 comment., and we have held that application of the preponderance standard at sentencing generally satisfies due process. McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79, 91-92, 106 S.Ct. 2411, 2418-2419, 91 L.Ed.2d 67 (1986); Nichols, supra, at 747-748, 114 S.Ct., at ---- - ----. We acknowledge a divergence of opinion among the Circuits as to whether, in extreme circumstances, relevant conduct that would dramatically increase the sentence must be based on clear and convincing evidence.
The cases before us today do not present such exceptional circumstances, and we therefore do not address that issue. We therefore hold that a jury's verdict of acquittal does not prevent the sentencing court from considering conduct underlying the acquitted charge, so long as that conduct has been proved by a preponderance of the evidence.
I do not agree with the assertion in Justice BREYER'S concurrence that there is no obstacle to the Commission's reversing today's outcome by mandating disregard of the information we today hold it proper to consider. Title 28 U.S.C. 994(b)(1) requires the Guidelines to be ''consistent with all pertinent provisions of title 18, United States Code.'' In turn, 18 U.S.C. 3661 provides that ''no limitation shall be placed on the information concerning the background, character, and conduct of a person convicted of an offense which a court of the United States may receive and consider for the purpose of imposing an appropriate sentence.'' In my view, neither the Commission nor the courts have authority to decree that information which would otherwise justify enhancement of sentence or upward departure from the Guidelines, may not be considered for that purpose (or may be considered only after passing some higher standard of probative worth than the Constitution and laws require) if it pertains to acquitted conduct. If the Commission believes that the rules of evidence and proof established by the Constitution and laws are inadequate, it may of course recommend changes to the Congress, cf. 28 U.S.C. 994(w).
''The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 revolutionized the manner in which district courts sentence persons convicted of federal crimes.'' Burns v. United States, 501 U.S. 129, 132, 111 S.Ct. 2182, 2184, 115 L.Ed.2d 123 (1991). The goals of rehabilitation and fairness served by individualized sentencing that formerly justified vesting judges with virtually unreviewable sentencing discretion have been replaced by the impersonal interest in uniformity and retribution.
Strict mandatory rules have dramatically confined the exercise of judgment based on a totality of the circumstances. ''While the products of the Sentencing Commission's labors have been given the modest name 'Guidelines,' . . . they have the force and effect of laws, prescribing the sentences criminal defendants are to receive. A judge who disregards them will be reversed.'' Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 413, 109 S.Ct. 647, 676, 102 L.Ed.2d 714 (1989) (SCALIA, J., dissenting).
* In 1970, during the era of individualized sentencing, Congress enacted the statute now codified as 18 U.S.C. 3661 to make it clear that otherwise inadmissible evidence could be considered by judges in the exercise of their sentencing discretion. The statute, however, did not tell the judge how to weigh the significance of any of that evidence. The judge was free to rely on any information that might shed light on a decision to grant probation, to impose the statutory maximum, or to determine the precise sentence within those extremes. Wisdom and experience enabled the judge to give appropriate weight to uncorroborated hearsay or to evidence of criminal conduct that had not resulted in a conviction. Even if convinced that a jury had erroneously acquitted a defendant, the judge was not required to ignore the evidence of guilt. At the same time, however, he or she was free to discount the significance of that evidence if mitigating circumstances-perhaps the same facts that persuaded the jury that an acquittal was appropriate-were present. Like a jury in a capital case, the judge could exercise discretion ''to dispense mercy on the basis of factors too intangible to write into a statute,'' Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 222, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 2947, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976) (White, J., concurring in judgment).
A closer examination of the interaction among § 3661, the other provisions of the Sentencing Reform Act, and the Guidelines demonstrates that the role played by § 3661 is of a narrower scope than the Court's opinion suggests. The Sentencing Reform Act was enacted primarily to address Congress' concern that similar offenders convicted of similar offenses were receiving ''an unjustifiably wide range of sentences.'' S.Rep. No. 98-225, p. 38 (1983). It therefore created the Sentencing Commission (or Commission) and directed it to draft Guidelines that would cabin the discretion of all judges-those who were too harsh as well as those who were too lenient. See 28 U.S.C. 991(b)(1)(B). While the abolition of parole indicates that the new rules were generally intended to increase the minimum levels of punishment, see 18 U.S.C. 3624(a) and (b), they also confined the judges' authority to impose the maximum sentences authorized by statute. The central mechanism that Congress promulgated to avoid disparate sentencing in typical cases is a requirement that for any sentence of imprisonment in the Guidelines, ''the maximum of the range established for such a term shall not exceed the minimum of that range by more than the greater of 25 percent or 6 months,'' 28 U.S.C. 994(b)(2). The determination of which of these narrow ranges a particular sentence should fall into is made by operation of mandatory rules, but within the particular range, the judge retains broad discretion to set a particular sentence.
If Putra had been found guilty of also participating in the 5 ounce transaction on May 9, 1992, the Guidelines would have required that both the minimum and the maximum sentences be increased; the range would have been between 27 and 33 months. As the District Court applied the Guidelines, precisely the same range resulted from the acquittal as would have been dictated by a conviction. Notwithstanding the absence of sufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the alleged offense on May 9 led to the imposition of a sentence six months longer than the maximum permitted for the only crime that provided any basis for punishment.
For three reasons, Williams cannot support the result in these cases. First, it dealt with the exercise of the sentencing judge's discretion within the range authorized by law, rather than with rules defining the range within which discretion may be exercised. Second, ''the accuracy of the statements made by the judge as to appellant's background and past practices was not challenged by appellant or his counsel, nor was the judge asked to disregard any of them or to afford appellant a chance to refute or discredit any of them by cross-examination or otherwise.'' Williams, 337 U.S., at 244, 69 S.Ct., at 1081-1082. The precise question here-the burden of proof applicable to sentencing facts-was thus not before the Court in that case. Third, its rationale depended largely on agreement with an individualized sentencing regime that is significantly different from the Guidelines system. ''Williams was decided in the context of a sentencing 'system that focused on subjective assessments of rehabilitative potential . . . . ' Saltzburg, Sentencing Procedures: Where Does Responsibility Lie?, 4 Fed. Sent. Rep. 248, 250 (1992) .'' United States v. Wise, 976 F.2d 393, 409 (C.A.8 1992) (Arnold, C. J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). As this Court has acknowledged, see Burns, 501 U.S., at 132, 111 S.Ct., at 2184, the Guidelines wrought a dramatic change in sentencing processes, replacing the very system that justified Williams with a rigid system in which ''for most defendants in the federal courts, sentencing is what the case is really about.'' Wise, 976 F.2d, at 409.
In McMillan, as in these cases, the defendant's minimum sentence was enhanced on the basis of a fact proved by a preponderance of the evidence. But in McMillan, the maximum was unchanged; the sentence actually imposed was within the range that would have been available to the judge even if the enhancing factor had not been proved. In these cases, however, the sentences actually imposed were higher than the Guidelines would have allowed without evidence of the additional offenses. The McMillan opinion pointedly noted that the Pennsylvania statute had not altered ''the maximum penalty for the crime committed'' and operated ''solely to limit the sentencing courts' discretion in selecting a penalty within the range already available to it without the special finding of visible possession of a firearm.'' Id., at 87-88, 106 S.Ct., at 2417. Given the Court's acknowledged ''inability to lay down any 'bright line' test'' that would define the limits of its holding, id., at 91, 106 S.Ct., at 2419, and its apparent assumption that a sentencing factor should not be allowed to serve as a ''tail which wags the dog of the substantive offense,'' id., at 88, 106 S.Ct., at 2417, see also ante, at __, n. 2, the holding should not be extended to allow a fact proved by only a preponderance to increase the entire range of penalties within which the sentencing judge may lawfully exercise discretion.
In 28 U.S.C. 994(l ) Congress specifically directed the Commission to ensure that the Guidelines included incremental sentences for multiple offenses. That subsection provides:SU22W''The Commission shall insure that the Guidelines promulgated . . . reflect-
It is difficult to square this explicit statutory command to impose incremental punishment for each of the ''multiple offenses'' of which a defendant ''is convicted'' with the conclusion that Congress intended incremental punishment for each offense of which the defendant has been acquitted.
The Court, however, appears willing to read the statute's treatment of multiple offenses as though it authorized an incremental penalty for each offense for which the defendant was indicted if she is convicted of at least one such offense. The fact that the text of the statute expressly authorizes such incremental punishment ''for each offense'' only when a ''defendant is convicted of . . . multiple offenses'' conveys a far different message to thoughtful judges.
See McMillan, 477 U.S., at 88, 106 S.Ct., at 2417 (upholding use of preponderance standard where there was no allegation that the sentencing enhancement was ''a tail which wags the dog of the substantive offense''); Kinder v. United States, 504 U.S. 946, 948-949, 112 S.Ct. 2290, 2291-2292, 119 L.Ed.2d 214 (1992) (White, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (acknowledging split); United States v. Kikumura, 918 F.2d 1084, 1102 (C.A.3 1990) (holding that clear-and-convincing standard is implicit in 18 U.S.C. 3553(b), which requires a sentencing court to ''find'' certain facts in order to justify certain large upward departures; not reaching the due process issue); United States v. Gigante, 39 F.3d 42, 48 (C.A.2 1994), as amended, 94 F.3d 53, 56 (1996) (not reaching due process issue; ''In our view, the preponderance standard is no more than a threshold basis for adjustments and departures, and the weight of the evidence, at some point along a continuum of sentence severity, should be considered with regard to both upward adjustments and upward departures . . . . Where a higher standard, appropriate to a substantially enhanced sentence range, is not met, the court should depart downwardly''); United States v. Lombard, 72 F.3d 170, 186-187 (C.A.1 1995) (authorizing downward departure in ''an unusual and perhaps a singular case'' that may have ''exceeded'' constitutional limits, where acquitted conduct calling for a ''enormous'' sentence enhancement ''is itself very serious conduct,'' ''where the ultimate sentence is itself enormous, and where the judge is seemingly mandated to impose that sentence''); see also United States v. Townle y, 929 F.2d 365, 369 (C.A.8 1991) (''At the very least, McMillan allows for the possibility that the preponderance standard the Court approved for garden variety sentencing determinations may fail to comport with due process where, as here, a sentencing enhancement factor becomes 'a tail which wags the dog of the substantive offense' '') (quoting McMillan, supra, at 88, 106 S.Ct., at 2417); United States v. Restrepo, 946 F.2d 654, 656, n. 1 (C.A.9 1991) (en banc) (suggesting that clear and convincing evidence might be required for extraordinary upward adjustments or departures), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 961, 112 S.Ct. 1564, 118 L.Ed.2d 211 (1992); United States v. Lam Kwong-Wah, 966 F.2d 682, 688 (C.A.D.C.) (same), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 901, 113 S.Ct. 287, 121 L.Ed.2d 213 (1992); United States v. Trujillo, 959 F.2d 1377, 1382(CA7) (same), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 897, 113 S.Ct. 277, 121 L.Ed.2d 204 (1992). But see United States v. Washington, 11 F.3d 1510, 1516 (C.A.10 1993) (''At least as concerns making guideline calculations the issue of a higher than a preponderance standard is foreclosed in this circuit''), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1020, 114 S.Ct. 1404, 128 L.Ed.2d 76 (1994).
Compare Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 247-248, 69 S.Ct. 1079, 1083-1084, 93 L.Ed. 1337 (1949) (''Reformation and rehabilitation of offenders have become important goals of criminal jurisprudence''), with 28 U.S.C. 994(k) (rejecting rehabilitation as a goal of imprisonment) and 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(2) (stating that punishment should serve retributive, deterrent, educational and incapacitative goals).
The circumstances surrounding Vernon Watts' sentencing were somewhat different from those involved in Putra's sentencing. Watts was acquitted of the crime of using a firearm in relation to a drug offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c), but was found guilty of certain drug crimes. United States v. Watts, 67 F.3d 790, 793 (C.A.9 1995). The sentencing judge enhanced Watts' base offense level by two points, pursuant to USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1), after concluding that the defendant's ''possession'' of the firearm in connection with the crime had been proved by a preponderance of the evidence. 67 F.3d, at 797-798. Because the ''use'' of a firearm and its ''possession'' are not identical, the judge may not have relied on facts necessarily rejected by the jury in concluding that the sentencing enhancement was appropriate. I nevertheless believe that the enhancement was inappropriate because it was based on conduct that the judge found only by a preponderance of the evidence. Since Watts' base offense level was increased by this evidence, I believe it should have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Courts upholding the Guidelines' relevant conduct provisions and their application in cases such as these have tended to focus their attention exclusively on those provisions in the statute that direct courts and the Commission to consider the ''nature and circumstances of the offense'' in determining an appropriate sentence. 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(1); see also 28 U.S.C. 994(d). In § 994(d), Congress granted the Sentencing Commission the authority to ''consider whether [certain enumerated factors], among others, have any relevance,'' in establishing Guidelines for offenses. Some courts have concluded that the inclusion of the qualifier ''among others'' in this provision indicated that Congress intended the Commission to include anything it felt was relevant to the sentencing decision. See, e.g., United States v. Galloway, 976 F.2d at 420-421; United States v. Thomas, 932 F.2d 1085, 1089 (C.A.5 1991), cert. denied sub nom. Pullock v. United States, 502 U.S. 895, 112 S.Ct. 264, 116 L.Ed.2d 217, and Samuels v. United States, 502 U.S. 962, 112 S.Ct. 428, 116 L.Ed.2d 447 (1992).FC21WBut this provision cannot be read separately from the rest of the statute. The clear congressional directive concerning sentencing for ''multiple offenses'' must be read as an important limit on the ''othe[r]'' factors that can be considered relevant to determination of an offense level.