Opinion ID: 47669
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Alvarado Robbery

Text: Clark initially contends that, excluding his admission during a protected cooperation interview, there was insufficient evidence that he committed the Alvarado robbery. Sentencing courts are prohibited from using self-incriminating information provided pursuant to a cooperation agreement in determining the guideline range. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.8(a); see also Shacklett, 921 F.2d at 582. However, the court may use information “known to the government prior to entering into the cooperation agreement.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.8(b)(1); see also United States v. Betancourt, 422 F.3d 240, 247 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Marsh, 963 F.2d 72, 74 (5th Cir. 1992). 4 Considering the evidence as a whole, and excluding Clark’s admission during the cooperation interview, the district court did not clearly err in finding by a preponderance of the evidence that Clark committed the Alvarado robbery. Investigators noted that the 183 and Alvarado robberies were similar, and victims identified Clark as a potential suspect in the Alvarado robbery. Moreover, Clark possessed firearms from the Alvarado robbery in his house, and, of the three Alvarado robbery suspects, Clark was the only one to whom items taken in the Alvarado robbery had been traced. Finally, Clark transferred a gun from the Alvarado robbery to an associate, and he planned a robbery around the time that the Alvarado robbery occurred. The district court’s upward departure based on the Alvarado robbery was not clear error. See, e.g., United States v. Reveles, 190 F.3d 678, 685 (5th Cir. 1999) (no clear error in finding that all shipments contained marijuana); United States v. Boutte, 13 F.3d 855, 860 (5th Cir. 1994) (no clear error in finding that defendant was organizer or leader).