Opinion ID: 57936
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Preponderance Standard

Text: Finally, we reject Mr. Melo’s argument that the district court erred by finding facts establishing relevant conduct according to a preponderance of the evidence standard. Courts routinely hold that under the advisory guidelines system, a judge may find facts by a preponderance of the evidence during sentencing, consistent with the Sixth Amendment and the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). E.g., United States v. Smith, 480 F.3d 1277, 1281 (11th Cir. 2007); United States v. Stevens, 487 F.3d 232, 245-46 (5th Cir. 2007); United States v. Lawson, 494 F.3d 1046, 1057-58 20 (D.C. Cir. 2007); United States v. Gallimore, 491 F.3d 871, 877 (8th Cir. 2007). Additionally, that Mr. Melo was sentenced disproportionately to his coconspirators does not itself present a basis for reversal, particularly where Mr. Melo’s criminal history contributed to the length of his sentence. See United States v. Chotas, 968 F.2d 1193, 1198 (11th Cir. 1992) (“[T]o adjust the sentence of a co-defendant in order to cure an apparently unjustified disparity between defendants in an individual case will simply create another, wholly unwarranted disparity between the defendant receiving the adjustment and all similar offenders in other cases.”).