Opinion ID: 590478
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Enhancement of Base Offense Level for Use of Dangerous Weapon

Text: 15 Next, Sagaille has objected to the district court's two level increase of his base offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) for the specific offense characteristic of using a dangerous weapon in a drug offense. Primarily, Sagaille has argued that, because he was acquitted of the firearm charge, the district court could not (or should not) determine that a dangerous weapon was used during the drug crimes. 16 Sagaille's argument is without merit. It is clear that a district court may sentence a defendant for an offense for which he has been acquitted, if the district court determines that the offense occurred by a preponderance of the evidence. See, e.g., Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 376 n.1 (1989); United States v. Powell, 886 F.2d 81, 85 (4th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1084 (1990). Several Circuits have expressly held that a defendant's base offense level may be increased under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 despite the fact that he has been acquitted of the firearm offense. See United States v. Coleman, 947 F.2d 1424, 1428-29 (10th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 1590 (1992); United States v. Welch, 945 F.2d 1378, 1384 (7th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 1235 (1992); United States v. Juarez-Ortega, 866 F.2d 747 (5th Cir. 1989). Although it may seem unfair to a criminal defendant that he can be acquitted of a firearm charge and still have his sentence enhanced for the same firearm, the Guidelines permit such a result. The important distinction is in the burden of proof. At trial, a conviction of a firearm offense must be found beyond a reasonable doubt, while at sentencing, a preponderance of the evidence suffices. Powell, 886 F.2d at 85. Therefore, the task remaining for us is to determine whether the district court was clearly erroneous in determining, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Sagaille used a firearm in connection with his drug offense. 17 In the instant case, the evidence indicates that a gun was found on top of the drugs located in the residence and that ammunition for another gun was located with the drug paraphernalia in the kitchen. Although the evidence is slight, we cannot say that the district court was clearly erroneous in determining, by a preponderance, that the gun was being used by Sagaille in connection with the drug offenses in the instant case. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's two level increase pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1.