Opinion ID: 168462
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reliance on O utside Proceedings

Text: M r. Gomez argues that the sentencing court abused its discretion by using evidence presented in another proceeding to determine the amount of drugs involved in the conspiracy. He points to the following statement by the district judge at the sentencing hearing: Now, I’ll find, based on my involvement as the presiding judge in this case, on what’s been presented today, as w ell as w hat I’ve heard throughout the other defendants’ matters in this conspiracy case, that Gabriel Gomez was involved in trafficking of marijuana by laundering illegal proceeds by providing stash houses and providing instructions to other conspirators to further the trafficking and the distribution of marijuana. As a result of his conduct, he is accountable for the underlying marijuana offense levels pursuant to Guideline 2D1.1. Appellant’s A pp. 0438-39. W e agree that it would be error for a district court to base a factual finding of drug quantities on evidence presented in another case, to which the defendant was not a party. W hen facts pertinent to sentencing are disputed, the government bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, and the defendant has the right not only to know the evidence presented against him but also to rebut or explain that evidence. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines M anual § 6A1.3; see United States v. Keifer, 198 F.3d 798, 800 (10th Cir. 1999); United States v. Peterman, 841 F.2d 1474, 1484 (10th Cir. 1988); United States v. Shepherd, 739 F.2d 510, 515 (10th Cir. 1984). That is not possible when the judge refers generally to evidence heard in another proceeding. -4- W e do not interpret the district court’s drug quantity finding in this case as having been based on evidence at the co-conspirators’ trial. The judge referred to that evidence in one sentence, in general reference to the nature of the defendant’s conduct. The court then analyzed drug quantity, referring exclusively to evidence presented in this case through testimony by FBI case agent M argaret Russin. Based on documents introduced into evidence and interviews with coconspirators, the agent calculated that M r. Gomez was responsible for 40,024 pounds, or 18,155 kilograms, of marijuana, which is 8,155 kilograms more than the G uideline required. The district court explicitly found that Agent Russin’s methodology was reasonable and adopted her calculation of drug quantity in determining the sentence. W e therefore reject M r. Gomez’s argument that the drug quantity finding was based on improper consideration of extra-record information. M r. Gomez makes a similar argument with respect to the district court’s role adjustment finding, under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). The district court found that M r. Gomez was one of two “kingpins” in the organization, and that he was responsible for the “distribution end of the drug trafficking organization.” Appellant’s App. 0440. Although the court did not specify the evidence on which it based this finding, the record of the sentencing hearing is replete with testimony regarding M r. Gomez’s role in the drug distribution operation. The -5- court’s brief reference to the evidence in the co-conspirator’s trial is not sufficient to demonstrate that the factual finding was improper.