Opinion ID: 1446534
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Defendant's Constitutional Challenges Lack Merit

Text: Defendant argues that his constitutional rights were violated in two ways. His arguments are without basis. First, Defendant argues that the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause requires that facts affecting the length of his sentence be determined by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. We recently rejected this exact proposition in United States v. Gates, 461 F.3d 703, 708 (6th Cir.) ([W]e find that judicial fact-finding in sentencing proceedings using a preponderance of the evidence standard post- Booker does not violate either Fifth Amendment due process rights, or the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 602, 166 L.Ed.2d 446 (2006). Defendant's argument is thus squarely foreclosed by Gates. Defendant also argues that the admission of testimonial hearsay against him at sentencing, where the declarant did not testify, and he had not had an opportunity to cross-examine the declarant, violated his rights under the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause. This argument fares no better. As Defendant recognizes, this Court recently ruled that the Confrontation Clause does not apply at sentencing. United States v. Katzopoulos, 437 F.3d 569, 576 (6th Cir.2006) ([T]here is nothing specific in Blakely [v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004)], [ United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005)] or Crawford [v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004)] that would cause this Court to reverse its long-settled rule of law that [the] Confrontation Clause permits the admission of testimonial hearsay evidence at sentencing proceedings.). We consequently find no violation of the Confrontation Clause.