Opinion ID: 153600
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Determination of Base Offense Level at Sentencing

Text: 27 Mr. Gutierrez next challenges the district court's determination of his base offense levels at sentencing. He argues that the court incorrectly calculated the amount of drugs involved in the conspiracy. At sentencing, the government bears the burden of proving drug quantity by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Chatman, 994 F.2d 1510, 1516 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 230 (1993). We review the district court's factual findings for clear error. Id. 28 Mr. Gutierrez's arguments amount to nothing more than a rehashing of his sufficiency of the evidence claim. He asserts that the district court relied on trial testimony which was either uncorroborated, unreliable or in conflict. He does not directly attack the amount of drugs involved in various transactions, rather he asserts that the drug transactions in question did not occur at all. We have already held that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient for the jury to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. A fortiori, the court did not err when it concluded that the same evidence was established by a preponderance of the evidence. The court did not err in determining the amount of drugs involved for sentencing purposes. 29