Opinion ID: 708869
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the counts were dismissed without a plea agreement

Text: 10 Sumabat contends that because the four counts were dismissed without a plea agreement and at the government's own volition, the counts should not be considered as relevant conduct. He argues that by allowing the government to avoid proof beyond a reasonable doubt at a jury trial that the appellant was guilty of the four counts, and then considering the four counts as relevant conduct with proof of a preponderance of the evidence, the court is denying him of due process. 11 U.S.S.G. Sec. 1B1.3 prescribes the relevant conduct for which a defendant is held accountable at sentencing. Pointing out the distinction between accountability for sentencing purposes and guilt for purposes of conviction, Application note 1 to Sec. 1B1.3 states: The principles and limits of sentencing accountability under this guideline are not always the same as the principles and limits of criminal liability. U.S.S.G. Sec. 1B1.3 n. 1. 12 This Court has already held that a preponderance of the evidence standard does not violate a defendant's due process in determining the existence of factors enhancing a sentence. Restrepo, 946 F.2d at 656. This Court has also held that under the Sentencing Guidelines, conduct that was part of the same scheme can be counted in determining the offense level, even though the defendant was not convicted of crimes based on the related conduct. United States v. Fine, 975 F.2d 596, 600 (9th Cir.1992). In Fine, the defendant pleaded guilty to one count of mail fraud and one count of use of a fictitious name for purpose of perpetrating a fraud. Id. at 598. The government dismissed the other twelve counts relating to mail fraud against the defendant. Id. However, the sentencing court considered the twelve dismissed counts as relevant conduct. Id. at 599. 13 Sumabat argues that the distinguishing factor between Fine and this case is that the defendant in Fine was aware that the dismissal of the other counts in exchange for a guilty plead to two counts only produced a non-binding recommendation for a specific sentence by the government. 14 A dismissal pursuant to a plea agreement is not, for these purposes, distinguishable from a dismissal at the government's own volition. Both dismissals produce the same effect. In one case, the defendant has pleaded guilty to a count; while in the other case, the defendant was found guilty of a count. The relevant conduct provisions of the Sentencing Guidelines are sentencing enhancement regimes evincing the judgment that a particular offense should receive a more serious sentence within the authorized range if it was either accompanied by or preceded by additional criminal activity. United States v. Witte, 115 S.Ct. 2199 (1995). Given the policy behind the relevant conduct provisions of the Sentencing Guidelines, whether or not the other counts were dismissed pursuant to a plea agreement does not affect the sentencing court's ability to consider the dismissed counts as relevant conduct. 15