Opinion ID: 602120
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Sentence Adjustment For Other Relevant Conduct.

Text: 20 Gaydos claims that the district court erred by considering the over 180 kilograms of coke that the processing laboratory could or did produce as relevant conduct in determining the appropriate offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines. Whether conduct extraneous to an offense of conviction is part of the same 'course of conduct' or 'common scheme or plan' as the offense of conviction so as to be considered 'relevant conduct' within the meaning of Guidelines [sic] § 1B1.3(a)(2), is reviewed for clear error. United States v. Hahn, 960 F.2d 903, 907 (9th Cir.1992). The factual findings at issue here are not disputed by Gaydos. Instead, Gaydos claims that the conduct related to the dismissed conspiracy count may not be considered for sentencing purposes on the possession count, to which he pleaded guilty. This argument is foreclosed by this court's decision in United States v. Fine, 975 F.2d 596, 600 (9th Cir.1992) (en banc). Thus, the offense level adjustment was proper. The conviction and sentence are 21 AFFIRMED.