Opinion ID: 2670974
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: Although a jury=s conviction must be based on evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the prosecution bears a lesser burden at the sentencing stage. The prosecution need only prove the amount of drugs for sentencing purposes by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. 4 In fact, the Court stated in its opinion that A[o]ur ruling today does not mean that any fact that influences judicial discretion must be found by a jury. We have long recognized that broad sentencing discretion, informed by judicial factfinding, does not violate the Sixth Amendment.@ Alleyne, 133 S. Ct. at 2163. -21- No. 12-4016 Russell, 595 F.3d 633, 646 (6th Cir. 2010). Where the exact quantity of drugs is unclear, the sentencing court may estimate that quantity based on Acompetent evidence in the record. In other words, the court finding must have >some minimum indicium of reliability beyond mere allegation.=@ United States v. Ward, 68 F.3d 146, 149 (6th Cir. 1995) (internal citation omitted) (quoting United States v. Smith, 887 F.2d 104, 108 (6th Cir. 1989)). A court may find that A[t]estimonial evidence from a coconspirator may be sufficient to determine the amount of drugs for which another coconspirator should be held accountable.@ United States v. Hernandez, 227 F.3d 686, 697 (6th Cir. 2000). However, where the drug quantity is unknown, Athe district court is encouraged to >err on the side of caution= and only hold the defendant responsible for that quantity of drugs for which >the defendant is more likely than not actually responsible.=@ United States v. Baro, 15 F.3d 563, 569 (6th Cir. 1994) (quoting United States v. Walton, 908 F.2d 1289, 1302 (6th Cir. 1990)). In Baro, after the district court failed to make factual findings to support a drug quantity increase, this Court remanded the case for resentencing, explaining that A[g]iven the marked impact of this single kilogram increase on the defendants= sentences, the district court should explicitly set forth the evidence on which it relies if it finds [the defendants] accountable for distribution of at least fifty kilograms of cocaine.@ Id. Therefore, where a district court sentences a defendant based on acquitted conduct, the court must identify the evidence on which it relied to make the drug quantity calculation. Id.; see also United States v. Walker, 399 F. App=x 75, 82B83 (6th Cir. 2010). In the instant case, the district court based its drug quantity calculation on a number of factors, including the testimony of many of Petitioner=s co-conspirators. The district court -22- No. 12-4016 acknowledged that the testimony of these co-conspirators alone Awould not satisfy proof by a preponderance of the evidence@ because the credibility of the co-conspirators was successfully challenged on cross-examination. However, the court also cited to phone records and surveillance, finding that Athe corroboration that the government also presented, particularly with regard to the phone records and the surveillance@ convinced the court Athat there [was] a showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the other acquitted conduct should be used in computing the sentencing guideline range.@ Considered together, the trial testimony, phone records, and surveillance were sufficient to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Petitioner was accountable for more than 150 kilograms of cocaine. Because Athe district court interpret[ed] the evidence in a manner consistent with the record, we are required to uphold its decision even if we would have reached the opposite conclusion.@ United States v. Darwich, 337 F.3d 645, 663 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573B74 (1985)).