Opinion ID: 561622
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: error in sentencing

Text: 14 Defendant maintains finally that the district court failed to determine whether the 30 kilogram figure, used to calculate his base offense level, was supported by the evidence. He claims that he objected specifically to the inclusion of the 30 kilograms relevant conduct in the case. 15 The government, on the other hand, contends that defendant objected only to certain portions of the presentence report, and did not specifically address the quantity of cocaine for which defendant was held accountable under the sentencing guidelines. The government argues that defendant, through his counsel at sentencing, objected only to a portion of the presentence report addressing the time frame in which defendant had been involved in cocaine purchases. 16 The portion of the presentence report to which defendant objected stated that Evans had testified that Evans had sold cocaine to defendant on six to twelve occasions in amounts ranging from five to ten kilograms each. The sentencing judge indicated the following at the hearing: 17 I'm going to strike out the last sentence of paragraph eight [of the presentence report]. That is the sentence starting, These prior drug activities by Tommy Porter. I'm going to leave the first sentence, indicating that is what Mr. Evans testified to. And whoever reads it, can draw there [sic] own conclusions. I am not going to make that conclusion. 18 While these remarks are not altogether clear, the court did unquestionably apply the recommended base offense level of 34 in this case. This took into account thirty kilograms of cocaine from prior dealing as relevant conduct. 19 Sentencing Guideline Sec. 1B1.3(a)(2) states that base level shall be determined on the basis of ... all such acts and omissions that were part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense of the conviction. Quantities of drugs which are not included in the conviction or indictment charges may be added in calculating the base offense level if they are found to be a part of the same course of conduct, common scheme, or plan. United States v. Sailes, 872 F.2d 735 (6th Cir.1989). Whether uncharged drugs are part of a common scheme or plan is a factual issue which must be determined by the district judge. United States v. Miller, 910 F.2d 1321, 1327 (6th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 980 (1991). The preponderance of the evidence standard applies to factual determinations under the guidelines, United States v. Castro, 908 F.2d 85, 90 (6th Cir.1990), and findings of fact should not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous. Miller, 910 F.2d at 1327. 20 Although the district court's finding as to the quantity of drugs for which defendant was accountable was done by necessary inference, we are satisfied that it is not necessary to remand this matter for a more specific finding. 21 The base offense level might well have been higher had the court considered the higher numbers testified to by Evans. Porter admitted prior involvement to law enforcement officers. The minimum amount of relevant conduct cocaine was added to the ten kilogram quantity involved in the indictment offense. Porter, in any event, is subject to a ten year statutory minimum. 22 For the reasons indicated, we AFFIRM.