Opinion ID: 2994102
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Use of Arson as Relevant Conduct

Text: The Kroledges also argue that the district court erred when it found by a preponderance of the evidence that they had committed arson and that this arson could be used as relevant conduct for the purpose of computing their sentence. They argue that the district court lacked sufficient evidence to determine by a preponderance of the evidence that they committed arson, and in the alternative, they argue that under these circumstances the more rigorous clear and convincing evidence standard should have been applied instead of the preponderance of the evidence standard. All four Kroledges were acquitted of the federal crime of arson--using fire in the furtherance of a federal felony. However, the district court determined, for the purposes of sentencing, that a preponderance of the evidence indicated that the Kroledges had committed arson, and the court decided to use the acquitted offense of arson as relevant conduct for the computation of their sentences. In United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148, 149 (1997), the Supreme Court held that acquitted offenses may be used as relevant conduct for the purposes of computing a defendant’s sentence. The decision in Watts confirmed our own prior precedent, see United States v. Fonner, 920 F.2d 1330, 1332 (7th Cir. 1990), which allowed such conduct to be taken into account. See Watts, 519 U.S. at 149. Sentencing judges may use all information that they possess in order to properly compute their sentence. See 18 U.S.C. sec. 3661 (No limitation shall be placed on the information concerning the background, character, and conduct of a person . . . for the purpose of imposing an appropriate sentence.). Because the relevant burden at sentencing is the preponderance of the evidence, we allow evidence of acquitted conduct to be considered as long as the government has met the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that defendants have engaged in the relevant conduct, see United States v. Porter, 23 F.3d 1274, 1277-78 (7th Cir. 1994), rather than applying the more stringent standard beyond a reasonable doubt required to convict a defendant. See Fonner, 920 F.2d at 1333. Thus, we will uphold the sentences imposed by the district court whenever we determine that the government at trial met the applicable standard for proving that the defendants have engaged in the relevant conduct even if they were acquitted at trial under the stricter standard.
We have held that a preponderance of the evidence is all that is required under the Sentencing Guidelines for a finding of fact. See, e.g., Porter, 23 F.3d at 1277. Despite our clear precedent, the Kroledges urge us to consider the argument that a heightened standard of proof must be met under some instances where a factual finding will result in a sentencing increase so great ’that the sentencing hearing can fairly be characterized as a tail which wags the dog of the substantive offense.’ United States v. Corbin, 998 F.2d 1377, 1387 (7th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). In support, the Kroledges cite United States v. Kikumura, 918 F.2d 1084, 1102 (3d Cir. 1990), in which the Third Circuit required the higher standard of proof in a case where the sentencing court raised the defendant’s sentence from about thirty months to thirty years. In Corbin, we acknowledged the possibility that a higher standard might be appropriate in those circumstances where the government appeared to use the sentencing hearing to retry the substantive offense. In such circumstances, the district court might use its discretion to depart from the Sentencing Guidelines in such a way as to effectively sentence a defendant to the term that would have been appropriate had she been convicted of the substantive offense. As we noted in United States v. Rodriguez, 67 F.3d 1312, 1322 (7th Cir. 1995), we have not yet been presented with an opportunity to consider whether, under a certain set of facts, such a heightened standard of proof may be appropriate. We are confident that these facts do not merit the imposition of the clear and convincing evidence standard. Here, the Kroledges were each acquitted of the charge of use of fire in the furtherance of a federal felony, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 844(i), which provides that any person who maliciously damages or destroys . . . by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other real or personal property . . . shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years. Thus, if the Kroledges had been convicted of the federal arson charge, they would each serve between five and twenty years. Instead, by enhancing their sentences based on the relevant conduct of arson, each Kroledge is serving either twenty-seven or thirty-three months, which is roughly half of the minimum sentence that they would have received for the arson charge. As we noted in Porter, see 23 F.3d at 1277-78, we have in many instances refused to adopt the Kikumura standard in cases where the sentence enhancement was more drastic than the enhancement at issue here. See Rodriguez, 67 F.3d at 1323 (51-63 months enhanced to life imprisonment); Porter, 23 F.3d at 1276 (92-115 months enhanced to 137 months); United States v. Masters, 978 F.2d 281, 283-85 (7th Cir. 1992) (33-41 months enhanced to 40 years). Contrasting these cases with the facts of Kikumura, we find that this does not qualify as a rare instance where a higher standard might be justified.
The Kroledges also argue that, even under the preponderance of the evidence standard, the sentencing court lacked sufficient evidence of the arson to include it as relevant conduct for the purpose of enhancing their sentences. Because there is ample evidence available in the record on which to base a finding of arson, we understand this claim actually to imply that the district court committed clear error by believing the government’s witnesses and disbelieving the Kroledges’ witnesses. Determinations of credibility by the sentencing judge are entitled to great deference on review. See United States v. Anaya, 32 F.3d 308, 314 (7th Cir. 1994). When confronted with conflicting testimony, sentencing judges are fully capable of considering the motivations of witnesses in weighing conflicting evidence and, because they have had an opportunity to assess the demeanor of the witnesses, are in a better position than this court to make credibility determinations. United States v. Griffin, 115 F.3d 1322, 1331 (7th Cir. 1997). For this reason, when a defendant asks only that we reassess a credibility determination, the argument is wasted on an appellate court, United States v. House, 110 F.3d 1281, 1286 (7th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted), unless a challenged witness’s testimony is shown to be inconsistent with contemporary documents or impossible. See, e.g., United States v. Grandinetti, 891 F.2d 1302, 1307 (7th Cir. 1989). In this case, the Kroledges do not challenge any evidence presented by the government. Instead, they argue that the government’s evidence should not outweigh the evidence that the Kroledges presented. The government’s evidence of arson included testimony of at least three witnesses, each of whom told a consistent story, as well as such physical evidence as Charles and Kathleen Kroledge’s possessions predating the fire, which had been stored with their family to preserve them, and the tape recordings made by Gilbert Kroledge, which capture admissions made by the Kroledges about the nature of the fire. We consider this evidence sufficient to support the district court’s determination.