Opinion ID: 2979989
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Issues Raised by William Domenech

Text: William Domenech challenges his sentence as both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. However, he offers no persuasive challenge to the length of his sentence or to the - 10 - Nos. 08-1220 & 08-1221 United States v. Domenech procedure used to calculate it. Rather, he argues for the first time on appeal that this court should remand for re-sentencing as a crack disparity case. Specifically, he claims that the district court unreasonably failed to discuss the new guidelines for crack disparities in calculating his sentence. To the contrary, the court sentenced defendant using the correct version of the amended guidelines, which provided for a reduction for certain crack cocaine offenses. While a later amendment changed the method for calculating the base level offense for crimes involving cocaine base, the district court applied the current version at the time of sentencing. Under 18 U.S.C § 3553(a)(4)(A)(ii), a district court applies the guidelines “in effect on the date the defendant is sentenced.” In doing so, the district court did not commit plain error. Defendant also argues that the district court erred in applying a two-level sentencing enhancement for physical restraint of a victim. See U.S.S.G. § 3A1.3. Defendant contends that, while he may have physically restrained that individual, that restraint was not related to the offense of conviction and is therefore inappropriate. We disagree. The guidelines define offense broadly to include all relevant conduct. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1 cmt. n.1(H). Because defendant’s restraint of this victim fell within the ambit of relevant conduct, the district court did not err. Finally, defendant argues that the district court erred in considering uncharged conduct and quantities of drugs. The district court, however, is permitted to find facts that increase the sentence above the statutory minimum so long as the sentence remains below the statutory maximum for the quantity found by the jury. United States v. Solorio, 337 F.3d 580, 597 (6th Cir. 2003); See United States v. Mayberry, 540 F.3d 506, 516-17 (6th Cir. 2008) (noting that judge may find facts by preponderance of the evidence so long as it does not raise sentence above statutory maximum). - 11 - Nos. 08-1220 & 08-1221 United States v. Domenech Because the district judge did not find facts permitting him to exceed the statutory maximum, this claim lacks merit.