Opinion ID: 3064204
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sentencing Guidelines manual

Text: As noted earlier, the 2006 Sentencing Guidelines manual contains the 2001 amendment to the Tax Table for computing the amount of loss for offenses involving taxation. See U.S.S.G. app. C, amend. 617, at 714-15 (2006 ed., vol. 2) (effective Nov. 1, 2001). King’s complaint is that the lower Tax Table in the 1998 manual should have been used.21 We disagree. First, the district court properly sentenced King under the 2006 Sentencing Guidelines manual because it was in effect at the time of his January 30, 2007 sentencing. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(4); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11(a)-(b)(1) (“The court shall use the Guidelines Manual in effect on the date that the defendant is sentenced. . . . If the court determines that use of the Guidelines Manual in effect 21 We review the district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines manual de novo and its findings of fact for clear error. See, e.g., United States v. Patti, 337 F.3d 1317, 1323 (11th Cir. 2003). 37 on the date that the defendant is sentenced would violate the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution, the court shall use the Guidelines Manual in effect on the date that the offense of conviction was committed.”); United States v. Aviles, 518 F.3d 1228, 1230 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 297 (2008) (“A defendant is sentenced using the Guidelines Manual in effect at the time of sentencing, unless this would raise ex post facto concerns, in which case the defendant is sentenced using the Guidelines Manual in effect at the time the crime was committed.”). Second, there is no ex post facto problem because King is being sentenced for a series of related crimes that went past 2001 and into 2002. See United States v. York, 428 F.3d 1325, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005) (“[I]f related crimes are committed in a series, the date of the crime at the end of the series governs the date of the Manual to be used.”). King had fair notice that continuing his crimes past 2001 subjected him to the Tax Table in effect when he committed the last of the crimes for which he was convicted. See United States v. Bailey, 123 F.3d 1381, 1405 (11th Cir. 1997) (“[A] defendant knows, when he continues to commit related crimes, that he risks sentencing for all of his offenses under the latest, amended Sentencing Guidelines Manual.”). Because the 2001 Tax Table was in effect at the time King committed the last two offenses in his series of offenses and the 2006 manual still uses that 2001 Tax Table, there are no ex post facto concerns. Thus, 38 the district court did not err in sentencing King under the 2006 Sentencing Guidelines manual.22