Opinion ID: 699628
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Enhancement was Supported by a Preponderance of Evidence

Text: 35 Even though the district court was not precluded from considering evidence of Karterman's drug-related activity, the sentencing enhancement based thereon is only permissible if the facts justifying the enhancement were proven by a preponderance of evidence. Restrepo II, 946 F.2d at 661. We conclude that a preponderance of evidence supports the district court's conclusion that over $10,000 of Karterman's unreported income for 1985 and 1986 came from drug trafficking. 36 There was ample evidence that Karterman engaged in fairly large-scale trafficking that could have generated over $10,000 income in a year. Lefner testified that during the early 1980s, Karterman was dealing multiple pounds of cocaine per month and was also supplying hashish. Vork testified that she purchased cocaine from Karterman as many as 48 times during 1985 and 1986. Karterman testified that he wasn't making very much money in the ... real estate business, yet he lived an expensive life style and had numerous, unexplained cash deposits into his bank accounts in 1985 and 1986. Such evidence of a disparity between income and life style permits an inference of drug trafficking activity. See United States v. Hoyland, 914 F.2d 1125, 1130-31 (9th Cir.1990). 3 Further, Karterman could not legitimately explain much of the unreported income. Cf. Duran, 15 F.3d at 134 (affirming sentence adjustment for abuse of trust based on defendant's purchase of cashier's checks far in excess of defendant's salary where defendant presented no evidence that the money came from a legitimate source). 37 In sum, we hold that the two-level enhancement was proper. The district court permissibly found, by a preponderance of evidence, that over $10,000 of unreported income in each year came from criminal activity.