Opinion ID: 757455
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Enhancement of sentence for the killing of Sherrie Holmes

Text: 26 Maass claims that the court erred in enhancing his sentence by including the murder of Ms. Holmes as conduct related to the drug distribution crime for which he was convicted. We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in doing so. 27 In reviewing the district court's application of the Sentencing Guidelines, we review the court's factual determinations for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. See United States v. Cuthbertson, 138 F.3d 1325, 1326 (10th Cir.1998). Moreover, determination of whether prior conduct is relevant conduct is a pure question of fact for the district court to determine. Id. Sentencing for the trafficking of drugs, including conspiracy, attempt, and possession with intent to traffic drugs, is controlled by U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. That section includes a cross-reference which applies [i]f a victim was killed under circumstances that would constitute murder under 18 U.S.C. § 1111 had such killing taken place within the territorial or maritime jurisdiction of the United States.... U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(d)(1). 7 In such cases, the sentencing court is to apply § 2A1.1 (First Degree Murder). Id. In turn, U.S.S.G. § 2A1.1 simply states Base offense level: 43. Thus, if the district court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that a victim was murdered in relation to the federal crime or crimes for which the defendant was convicted, it must apply a base offense level of 43. 8 See United States v. Crump, 120 F.3d 462, 467-68 (4th Cir.1997). 28 In reaching its sentencing decision, the court may consider conduct of which the defendant has been acquitted, see United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148, 117 S.Ct. 633, 638, 136 L.Ed.2d 554 (1997) (per curiam), as well as conduct for which the defendant has not been charged, see United States v. Yarnell, 129 F.3d 1127, 1137 (10th Cir.1997). So long as the district court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the conduct in question occurred, and so long as the guidelines permit the conduct to be considered in calculating the sentence, the sentencing court may rely upon that conduct during sentencing. See Watts, 117 S.Ct. at 638; Witte v. United States, 515 U.S. 389, 397-98, 115 S.Ct. 2199, 132 L.Ed.2d 351 (1995). 29 The key question we must ask is whether the district court clearly erred in finding that Maass' murder of Ms. Holmes was relevant conduct to his drug trafficking crimes. Under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1), relevant conduct, as well as the cross-referenced conduct in Chapter Two (including § 2D1.1) is determined on the basis of whether the acts and omissions committed, aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, procured, or wilfully caused by the defendant ... occurred during the commission of the offense of conviction, in preparation for that offense, or in the course of attempting to avoid detection or responsibility for that offense. 9 The district court did not err in finding that Maass murdered Ms. Holmes and that her killing was conduct relevant to his drug distribution activities. 10 30 Maass argues that the district court erred in concluding that the murder occurred during the commission of his drug trafficking crimes because the murder did not occur concurrently with any identifiable drug distribution acts. However, the evidence before the district court showed that Maass murdered Ms. Holmes because he had learned that she may have gone to the police with information about his drug dealing activities. Before murdering her, Maass interrogated Ms. Holmes in an effort to find out just what the police knew about his drug-dealing activities. 11 Shortly after the murder, apparently confident that the police were not aware of his dealings with Thomasson, Maass met with Thomasson to set up a methamphetamine deal. Thus, even if his killing of Ms. Holmes was not done during the actual commission of a drug distribution crime, it most certainly was done in preparation for such crimes as well as in the course of attempting to avoid detection or responsibility for his drug trafficking offenses. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1). The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing an offense level of 43 as required by U.S.S.G. §§ 2D1.1(d)(1) and 2A1.1. 12 31 In the alternative, Maass claims that the cross-reference provision of U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(d)(1) violates his constitutional rights because it subjects him to double jeopardy, i.e., double punishment for the single act of murdering Ms. Holmes. A claim that a sentence subjects a criminal defendant to double jeopardy is reviewed de novo. See United States v. Hawley, 93 F.3d 682, 687 (10th Cir.1996). 32 The Supreme Court has held that reliance upon prior criminal activity to enhance a defendant's sentence does not function to punish the prior criminal conduct, therefore such reliance on prior criminal activity in sentencing does not give rise to a double jeopardy claim. See Witte, 515 at 400; accord Hawley, 93 F.3d at 688. Thus, the cross-referencing provision of § 2D1.1(d)(1) does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution. 13