Opinion ID: 3014617
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Burdens at Sentencing Hearing

Text: We exercise plenary review over questions of law related to the District Court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. James, 78 F.3d 851, 855 (3d Cir. 1996). The District Court determined facts relevant to sentencing using a preponderance of the evidence standard. According to Santana, because the Court applied enhancements amounting to four offense levels, the standard should have been stepped up to beyond a reasonable doubt. Santana mistakenly analogizes to United States v. Kikumura, where this court required use of a clear and convincing evidence standard. 918 F.2d 1084, 1089 (3d Cir. 1990) (holding that a higher standard was warranted where the District Court increased the sentence from a range of 27-33 months to 360 months, the largest departure from an applicable guideline range, in absolute or percentage terms, since the Guidelines became effective). The much smaller increase applied to Santana (from base level of 34 to total offense level of 35) does not raise the concerns voiced in 1 The charge of conspiracy to distribute marijuana within 1000 feet of a school, 21 U.S.C. § 846, to which Santana pleaded guilty, carries a penalty of ten years to life. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(vii). 4 Kikumura. See United States v. Mack, 229 F.3d 226, 234 (3d Cir. 2000) (refusing to apply Kikumura’s heightened standard except in “similarly extreme upward departures”); see also Kikumura, 918 F.2d at 1101-02 (citing a list of cases recognizing the general rule is to apply a preponderance of the evidence standard).