Opinion ID: 735402
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Legal Standard Applied

Text: 43 In narcotics cases, for purposes of the Guidelines and the operation of the mandatory minimum sentences, the district court must make a determination at sentencing of the quantity of drugs involved in the offense. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 960(b)(1), 963 (1982 and Supp.1996); U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(a)(3). In a drug conspiracy case, [a] court is entitled to consider 'all transactions engaged in by a defendant or by his coconspirators if the transactions were either known to him or reasonably foreseeable to him.'  United States v. Podlog, 35 F.3d 699, 706 (2d Cir.1994) (quoting United States v. Negron, 967 F.2d 68, 72 (2d Cir.1992)). The district court has broad discretion to consider all relevant information when making a finding concerning quantity of drugs involved.... United States v. Pico, 2 F.3d 472, 475 (2d Cir.1993). Moreover, [t]he Government need only establish the amount of the narcotics foreseeable to the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence.... Podlog, 35 F.3d at 706. 44 Rivera-Rosa argues that the district court held that his mere awareness of the scope of the conspiracy was sufficient to render him responsible for the full amount of the imported heroin. In fact, the district court found that Rivera-Rosa was aware of what was going on with respect to that other material and he participated in the conspiracy to bring it into the country. It noted that the issue is the scope, his knowledge of the scope of the agreement and what was contemplated to jointly undertake in criminal activity. Thus, the district court's determination satisfied the either known to ... or reasonably foreseeable to standard. Podlog, 35 F.3d at 706.