Opinion ID: 1248604
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Relevance of the Entire Range of Conduct

Text: Finally, the district court based its decision to apply the 2002 Guidelines on the entire range of conduct committed in the case that continued actually even into 2003 in relation to additional individual victims which were not specifically charged but detailed in the presentence report. However, the law in this Circuit is plain that uncharged conduct occurring after the conduct of conviction cannot be considered when determining which version of the Guidelines to apply. See Zagari, 111 F.3d at 324-25. Commentary to the Guidelines, which we have found to be highly persuasive evidence of the Sentencing Commission's intent, addresses this precise issue Under subsection (b)(1), the last date of the offense of conviction is the controlling date for ex post facto purposes. For example, if the offense of conviction ( i.e., the conduct charged in the count of the indictment or information of which the defendant was convicted) was determined by the court to have been committed between October 15, 1991 and October 28, 1991, the date of October 28, 1991 is the controlling date for ex post facto purposes. This is true even if the defendant's conduct relevant to the determination of the guideline range under § 1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct) included an act that occurred on November 2, 1991 (after a revised Guideline Manual took effect). U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11 cmt. n. 2. Reliance on defendant's uncharged conduct in 2002 and 2003 was accordingly in error. Application of the 2002 version of the Guidelines was both retrospective and disadvantageous to the defendant. As a consequence, we remand to the district court for resentencing under the 2000 Guidelines.