Opinion ID: 149604
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Related Conduct

Text: Mr. Mendez claims that the methamphetamine sales were unrelated to his cocaine-based offenses because the methamphetamine sales were not part of the conspiracy for which he was convicted and lacked similarity or a temporal relationship to the charged conduct. “Because [Mr. Mendez] did not raise this issue below, we review the district court’s sentencing decision for plain error.” United States v. Delacruz-Soto, 414 F.3d 1158, 1162 (10th Cir. 2005). To establish plain error, [Mr. Mendez] must demonstrate that the district court (1) committed error, (2) that the error was plain, and (3) that the plain error affected his substantial rights. If the error meets all these conditions, a reviewing court may exercise discretion to correct the error if allowing the error to stand would seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. (citations omitted). “Relevant Conduct” to be used in calculating a defendant’s offense level includes “all acts and omissions . . . that were part of the same course of conduct -3- or common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction.” USSG § 1B1.3(a)(2) (2007). “For two or more offenses to constitute part of a common scheme or plan, they must be substantively connected to each other by at least one common factor, such as common victims, common accomplices, common purpose, or similar modus operandi.” Id. cmt. n.9(A). “Offenses . . . qualify as part of the same course of conduct if they are sufficiently connected or related to each other as to warrant the conclusion that they are part of a single episode, spree, or ongoing series of offenses.” Id. cmt. n.9(B) (emphasis added). “[W]hen determining whether certain activity qualifies as relevant conduct under the Guidelines, similarity, regularity, and temporal proximity are the significant elements to be evaluated.” United States v. Caldwell, 585 F.3d 1347, 1350 (10th Cir. 2009) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). Testimony at Mr. Mendez’s sentencing hearing showed that between 2000 and his arrest in 2007, Mr. Mendez had been involved in continuing drug sales, including (1) distribution of between 200 and 500 pounds of marijuana over a five-year period beginning in 2000, (2) distribution of 20 kilograms of cocaine between 2004 and the time of his arrest, and (3) distribution of methamphetamine to Cardenas-Rangel in 2006. Because the district court could reasonably find that the methamphetamine sales were part of an ongoing series of unlawful drug sales, the court did not commit error, much less plain error, in considering the methamphetamine sales as relevant conduct. See United States v. Lauder, 409 -4- F.3d 1254, 1266–67 (10th Cir. 2005). In particular, we cannot say that the court erred in finding Cardenas-Rangel credible. See United States v. Hanson, 534 F.3d 1315, 1319 (10th Cir. 2008) (sentencing judge makes credibility determinations).