Opinion ID: 2755032
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Due Process During Sentencing

Text: Rashid’s arguments that the government’s witnesses, Ann Marie Kelly and Todd Pride, perjured themselves at sentencing are unavailing.17 First, Rashid was able to crossexamine them. Second, Rashid argued that certain witnesses who had not been subpoenaed could prove that Pride’s and Kelly’s testimony was false. The Court agrees with the District Court that Rashid was attempting to use those witnesses to contradict evidence from trial, rather than to address the sentencing factors. The District Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to hear those witnesses or to strike Kelly’s and Pride’s testimony. The District Court also did not commit clear error in ruling that Kelly’s loss amount of $26,850 should be included. Loss amount is a sentencing fact that must be found by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Ali, 508 F.3d 136, 145 (3d Cir. 2007). Kelly was subject to extensive direct and cross-examination at the May 21 16 In his reply brief, Rashid argues that the government has used false statements to convict him, which is a due process violation. Because we find that the statements made by the prosecutor have support in the record, we need not address this argument. 17 Appellate review of sentencing decisions is limited to determining whether they are reasonable under the abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007). This Court reviews the factual findings relevant to the Sentencing Guidelines for clear error and exercises plenary review over a district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines. United States v. Grier, 475 F.3d 556, 570 (3d Cir. 2007); see also United States v. Himler, 355 F.3d 735, 740 (3d Cir. 2004) (loss determination subject to clear error review). We review decisions to admit or exclude evidence at sentencing for abuse of discretion. United States v. Olhovsky, 562 F.3d 530, 543 (3d Cir. 2009). 9 sentencing hearing, during which she testified that she gave Rashid $26,850 based on his misrepresentations that he would help her save her home.18 Neither the government nor the probation office were required to offer evidence to support the Presentence Report in the face of Rashid’s objections. Rashid argued that the victims summarized in Exhibit 2900, a chart illustrating the government’s loss calculations, were improperly considered to be victims. Except for Pride and Kelly, who testified at the sentencing hearing, all other loss amounts were supported by evidence from trial. The District Court concluded that the amounts listed in Exhibit 2900 were an accurate rendering of the testimony and documentary evidence. Because the District Court may rely on trial evidence in making factual determinations at sentencing, there is no clear error in this ruling. See United States v. DeSumma, 272 F.3d 176, 181 (3d Cir. 2001).19 18 Because the District Court concluded that no loss attributable to Todd Pride’s father, Dr. Pride, would be included, the testimony of Dr. Pride in addition to his son was unnecessary. 19 Lastly, the District Court did not prevent Rashid from subpoenaing witnesses and made clear that Rashid could subpoena witnesses if he chose. Rashid filed a motion requesting transcripts and the service of subpoenas, which the District Court dismissed without prejudice, stating, “The Court does not rule on the propriety of issuing subpoenas at this time. Defendant may issue subpoenas to prospective witnesses for sentencing purposes. Rulings on the relevance and admissibility of witness testimony are reserved for the time of sentencing.” (Docket No. 377.) Furthermore, because Rashid was appointed standby counsel and permitted to use up to $500 in investigative services to prepare for sentencing, he did not need court assistance in subpoenaing witnesses. 10