Opinion ID: 778658
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Determination of relevant conduct for sentencing purposes

Text: 148 Hilario Solis argues that the government failed to present any competent evidence as to the quantity of two kilograms of cocaine attributed to him as relevant conduct. Mendez likewise argues that there is no corroborating evidence that he was in the conspiracy or chain of supply for the drugs that caused the users' deaths alleged in Counts 6, 9, 12, or 27, on the basis of which he was sentenced. He argues that the district court erred in failing to make individualized findings of his relevant conduct. 149 We review the district court's factual determination of a defendant's relevant conduct for sentencing purposes for clear error only. 155 To count as relevant conduct under the guidelines, [i]t is not necessary for the defendant to have been charged with or convicted of carrying out the other acts before they can be considered relevant conduct, although the conduct must be criminal. 156 Additionally, [i]t is well established that relevant conduct under the sentencing guidelines includes all reasonably foreseeable acts of coconspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy. 157 150 It is also well-settled that a district court may adopt facts contained in a Presentence Report (PSR) without further inquiry if the facts have an adequate evidentiary basis and the defendant does not present rebuttal evidence. 158 Here, the district court relied upon the findings of relevant conduct in Hilario Solis's PSR, which had an adequate evidentiary basis for the two kilograms of cocaine attributed to Hilario Solis and to which Hilario Solis offered no rebuttal evidence. Under these circumstances, the district court properly adopted the PSR and relied upon the information contained therein to make its factual findings. 159 Moreover, because the relevant conduct finding challenged here did not affect Hilario Solis's combined adjusted offense level, any error was harmless. 160 151 As with Hilario Solis, the district court made sufficient individualized findings as to Mendez by adopting the PSR, to which Mendez offered no rebuttal evidence. Under these circumstances, the district court, which had heard all of the evidence presented against Mendez and his co-conspirators at trial, did not err in its determination of Mendez's relevant conduct. 161 152 We find no clear error in the district court's determination of relevant conduct for purposes of sentencing Hilario Solis or Mendez. The sentences imposed on these defendants are affirmed over these challenges.