Opinion ID: 2978467
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Nesbit’s Base Offense Level

Text: Nesbit challenges the district court’s denial of a two-point reduction for acceptance of responsibility, alleging that the district court based its decision on acquitted conduct, or, as it was defined by the court, relevant conduct. When reviewing sentencing decisions, we review a district court’s factual findings for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo . United States v. Hazelwood, 398 F.3d 792, 795 (6th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). We review de novo a district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines, United States v. Gibson, 409 F.3d 325, 338 (6th Cir. 2005), and constitutional challenges to a defendant’s sentence. United States v. Copeland, 321 F.3d 582, 601 (6th Cir. 2003). Nesbit relies on United States v. White, 551 F.3d 381 (6th Cir. 2008), en banc, then before this court en banc, in arguing that permitting a district court to rely on acquitted conduct in No. 07-3665 United States of America v. Nesbit Page 4 determining sentencing undermines the jury’s role in deciding guilt or innocence. Unfortunately for Nesbit, in White, this Court, sitting en banc, found that the holding of United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148 , 157 (1997)—that a district court is permitted to consider at sentencing conduct of which a defendant is acquitted at trial so long as it was proven by a preponderance of the evidence—continues to apply after the Supreme Court’s holding in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 240-41 (2004). White, 551 F.3d at 386. While a district court may enhance a defendant’s sentence based on acquitted conduct, this is not to say that it must do so. Id. Additionally, a court that chooses to enhance “a sentence based on acquitted conduct . . . should articulate how and why, in its judgment, such conduct appropriately influenced its Section 3553(a) analysis with respect to the specific defendant and specific crime at issue.” Id. Here, the district court acknowledged that it was considering acquitted conduct because it found Nesbit’s testimony to be self-serving and his credibility to be limited. As we have previously determined that consideration of acquitted conduct in sentencing is appropriate where the court articulates why the conduct influenced its decision for the specific defendant and crime at issue, the district court’s judgment was correct.