Opinion ID: 740754
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Uncharged Juvenile Offenses

Text: 10 Price contends the district court improperly considered uncharged juvenile offenses when it imposed his sentence. This argument also lacks merit. By statute, 11 [n]o limitation shall be placed on the information concerning the background, character, and conduct of a person convicted of an offense which a court of the United States may receive and consider for the purpose of imposing an appropriate sentence. 12 18 U.S.C. § 3661. 13 The Supreme Court has held, [A]s a general proposition, a sentencing judge may appropriately conduct an inquiry broad in scope, largely unlimited either as to the kind of information he may consider, or the source from which it may come. Nichols v. United States, 511 U.S. 738, 747, 114 S.Ct. 1921, 1927-28, 128 L.Ed.2d 745 (1994) (internal quotations omitted). 14 Moreover, Guidelines section 4A1.3 which lists relevant considerations for departing from the guidelines, states the factors listed to consider, may include, but [are] not limited to ... (e) prior similar adult criminal conduct not resulting in a criminal conviction. USSG § 4A1.3 (emphasis added). The commentary to this section necessarily anticipates consideration of evidence relating to uncharged juvenile offenses where it suggests that a defendant's criminal history category may not be representative of his criminal history; [t]his may be particularly true in the case of younger defendants (e.g., defendants in their early twenties or younger.) Id., comment. 15 Because the uncharged juvenile offenses concerned Price's background, character and conduct, the district court did not err in considering such evidence when it sentenced Price.