Opinion ID: 2975372
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Factual findings by the sentencing court

Text: Burley and Clark both contend that the district court violated their Sixth Amendment rights in making factual findings by a preponderance of the evidence when it determined the amount of loss, the role that they played in the offense, and that they used device-making equipment. Instead, -8- Nos. 06-1333, 06-1494 U.S. v. Burley, U.S. v. Clark they assert that United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), requires the district court to use the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard when making factual findings that will increase the sentence beyond the Guidelines range indicated without such additional facts. This court has rejected the defendants’ argument in previous cases, holding instead that “Booker did not eliminate judicial fact-finding.” United States v. Coffee, 434 F.3d 887, 898 (6th Cir. 2006). Our caselaw makes clear “that a district court may make its own factual findings regarding relevant sentencing factors, and consider those factors in determining a defendant’s sentence.” United States v. Gardiner, 463 F.3d 445, 461 (6th Cir. 2006). Moreover, “the district court does not violate Booker if it considered the guidelines to be advisory and not mandatory.” United States v. Kosinski, 480 F.3d 769, 775 (6th Cir. 2007) (brackets omitted). Under the post-Booker advisory Guidelines regime, a sentencing enhancement that is based on reliable information, supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and does not exceed the statutory maximum sentence for the offense is constitutional. Id. The district court in the present case conducted an extensive sentencing hearing at which five witnesses testified. It also reviewed the parties’ sentencing memoranda, the amount-of-loss spreadsheet, the grand jury transcripts, law enforcement reports, and the PSRs to make its factual findings. See United States v. Ferguson, 456 F.3d 660, 665 (6th Cir. 2006) (finding a district court’s sentencing determination appropriate where it held a sentencing hearing and relied on the PSR in determining the facts used to calculate the Guidelines range). The district court also described the Guidelines range as “a factor for the Court to look to in deciding what . . . a proportionate sentence should be.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, in keeping with this court’s post-Booker caselaw, we conclude -9- Nos. 06-1333, 06-1494 U.S. v. Burley, U.S. v. Clark that the district court acted within its authority in finding the facts used to calculate Burley’s and Clark’s Guidelines ranges.