Opinion ID: 168462
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Application of the Sentencing G uidelines

Text: At the evidentiary hearing prior to sentencing, the government introduced evidence that under M r. Gomez’s direction, approximately 40,000 pounds of marijuana had been transported from M exico and distributed throughout the United States. The government also presented evidence that M r. Gomez possessed a firearm, obstructed justice by intimidating a witness, and lead a criminal enterprise that involved more than five persons. The district court found -2- that the government proved these facts by the preponderance of the evidence. Calculation of a Guidelines sentence can include enhancements based on facts proved by a preponderance of the evidence so long as the judge treats the calculation as advisory rather than mandatory. United States v. M agallanez, 408 F.3d 672, 685 (10th Cir. 2005). M r. Gomez argues that the sentencing court could not enhance his sentence using facts found by a preponderance of the evidence because it treated the Guidelines as mandatory. But the district court’s conduct, as well as its words, demonstrates that the court did not treat the G uidelines as mandatory. The court began the sentencing proceeding by explaining that it would calculate the sentence using the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and then determine whether the sentence was reasonable using the sentencing factors found in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The facts found at sentencing combined with M r. Gomez’s criminal history resulted in an offense level of 44, which mandates life in prison under the Guidelines. After considering the § 3553(a) factors, the sentencing court determined that a life sentence would be unfair because it was the same sentence imposed on M r. Gomez’s co-defendant who did not plead guilty, showed no remorse, and denied his involvement in the criminal enterprise. By adjusting the sentence according to the § 3553(a) factors, the court plainly treated the Guidelines as advisory. -3-