Court Opinion

ID: 9479715
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 07:26:56.52176+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:47:13.734551
License: Public Domain

RALPH B. GUY, Jr., Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I believe we have an adequate record before us and, on the basis of that record, I would affirm the sentence meted out by the district court. In this regard it is clear, to me at least, that the district judge did accept the plea agreement, otherwise he would not have ordered a presentence investigation report (PIR) to be prepared.
My principal disagreement with the majority opinion concerns the suggestion that an agreement by the government not to file “additional charges” insulates the conduct that would be the predicate for such charges from consideration by the court at the time of sentencing. Since this court is already on record as allowing the factual underpinnings of counts dismissed as part of a plea bargain to be considered by the court at sentencing,11 can see no principled reason why uncharged conduct may not be considered if it otherwise meets the requirements of the Guidelines. Since we have already swallowed the camel, it is no time to choke on the gnat.
Silverman argues that the court’s reliance on the kilo transaction as “relevant conduct” for purposes of establishing the base offense level was inappropriate because that conduct occurred prior to the November 1987 effective date of the Guidelines; was not established by a jury finding or admission; was part of conduct dismissed or not pursued because of a court accepted plea agreement; and was not proved by competent evidence to be part of the same course of conduct, common scheme, or plan as the offense of conviction.
Resolution of Silverman’s arguments requires review of pertinent provisions of the Guidelines. The introductory chapter of the Guidelines contains general principles governing their application. Section 1B1.-2(a) instructs the sentencing court to determine the appropriate offense guideline, set forth in chapter two, that is most applicable to the offense of conviction. Section lB1.2(b) further directs the sentencing court to determine the applicable guideline range in accordance with the Guidelines’ *1541provisions on “Relevant Conduct.” § lB1.2(a), (b).
The Guidelines, as most recently amended in January 1988, describe relevant conduct in pertinent part as follows:
§ 1B1.3. Relevant Conduct (Factors that Determine the Guideline Range) The conduct that is relevant to determining the applicable guideline range includes that set forth below.
(a) Chapters Two (Offense Conduct) and Three (Adjustments). Unless otherwise specified, (i) the base offense level where the guideline specifies more than one base offense level, (ii) specific offense characteristics and (iii) cross references in Chapter Two, and (iv) adjustments in Chapter Three, shall be determined on the basis of the following:
(1) all acts and omissions committed or aided and abetted by the defendant, or for which the defendant would be otherwise accountable, that occurred during the commission of the offense of conviction, in preparation for that offense, or in the course of attempting to avoid detection or responsibility for that offense, or that otherwise were in furtherance of that offense;
(2) solely with respect to offenses of a character for which § 3D 1.2(d) would require grouping of multiple counts, all such acts and omissions that were part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction.
(Emphasis added).
The Commentary to subsection (a)(2) provides:
Subsection (a)(2) provides for consideration of a broader range of conduct with respect to one class of offenses, primarily certain property, tax, fraud and drug offenses for which the guidelines depend substantially on quantity, than with respect to other offenses such as assault, robbery and burglary. The distinction is made on the basis of § 3D1.2(d), which provides for grouping together (i.e., treating as a single count) all counts charging offenses of a type covered by this subsection. However, the applicability of subsection (a)(2) does not depend upon whether multiple counts are alleged. Thus, in an embezzlement case, for example, embezzled funds that may not be specified in any count of conviction are nonetheless included in determining the offense level if they are part of the same course of conduct or part of the same scheme or plan as the count of conviction. Similarly, in a drug distribution case, quantities and types of drugs not specified in the count of conviction are to be included in determining the offense level if they were part of the same course of conduct or part of a common scheme or plan as the count of conviction. On the other hand, in a robbery case in which the defendant robbed two banks, the amount of money taken in one robbery would not be taken into account in determining the guideline range for the other robbery, even if both robberies were part of a single course of conduct or the same scheme or plan. (This is true whether the defendant is convicted of one or both robberies.)
Guidelines at § 1.19 (emphasis added).
In this case, the district judge made a factual determination that the kilo transaction resulted in a debt to the defendant that was relevant to his motive and intent in the incident leading to his arrest. The court further determined that the kilo transaction constituted part of the same course of conduct, scheme, or plan as the offense of conviction. These factual determinations, though contested by Silverman, are based on evidence in the record before the court and reflect credibility determinations and a weighing of conflicting evidence by the court. I would conclude that the court’s factual determinations are supported by the PIR and testimony by DEA Agent Robins, and are not clearly erroneous. Therefore, I decline to disturb those findings. Moreover, since the court’s factual determination renders the kilo transaction “relevant conduct” within the meaning of the Guidelines, the court properly added the quantity of cocaine involved in the kilo transaction and the offense of conviction in determining the applicable sentencing *1542range. See Guidelines § 2D 1.1 and Commentary at 2.40, 2.46.
Silverman contends that because the alleged kilo transaction occurred prior to the November 1987 effective date of the Guidelines, it is outside the purview of the district court in sentencing him on the February 1988 offense of conviction, which is properly subject to the Guidelines. As did the district court, I would reject this argument, noting that prior to implementation of the Guidelines a court was free to consider at sentencing a pattern of continuing drug activity by a defendant. There is no indication that Congress or the Sentencing Commission intended to preclude the court from considering such relevant conduct at sentencing.
Silverman also contends that the plea agreement precluded the court from considering the kilo transaction at sentencing. However, the plea agreement did not bind the court to a particular sentence or to limiting its consideration of relevant conduct at the time of sentencing. Rather, the government agreed and complied with its agreement not to file additional charges against Silverman for prior illegal drug transactions in the Southern District of Ohio about which he gave testimony or made statements in accordance with the plea agreement. The plea agreement also noted Silverman’s acknowledgement that conviction on count one alone exposed him to as much as a twenty-year prison sentence. Accordingly, I find no merit to Sil-verman’s argument that his sentence of seven years and three months, based, in part, on the quantity of cocaine involved in the kilo transaction, somehow violated the plea agreement.
Silverman next argues that the three-point enhancement of his sentence was improper because it was based on the purported relevant conduct described in the PIR rather than on his role in the offense of conviction.
Once a base offense level is determined under the Guidelines, the level may be subject to upward or downward adjustments. For example, in this case, a two-point downward adjustment was applied pursuant to section 3E1.1 of the Guidelines based on Silverman’s acceptance of responsibility for his involvement in the count one charges to which he pleaded guilty. Upward adjustments are also authorized for such things as a defendant’s role in a particular offense. Guidelines § 3B1.1(a), (b), (c). Notwithstanding Silverman’s arguments to the contrary, or the fact that he did not originally purchase the 53 grams of cocaine for which he was ultimately arrested, the district court determined that Sil-verman played a major role in the offense. This determination was based on the fact that when the informant arrived to purchase the cocaine, Silverman took charge of the situation, instructed Mourning not to sell the cocaine because of the informant’s prior debt, and exercised dominion and control over the money and the cocaine, which was subsequently found in his gym bag. Silverman himself admitted that he intended to go to Athens that day to sell the cocaine, and that he had been involved in drug trafficking in the past. The district court determined that Silverman was a “central, controlling and highly culpable actor” in the offense and not the causal bystander that Silverman sought to portray himself. I conclude that this factual determination is not clearly erroneous and that the sentencing court had authority, pursuant to section 3Bl.l(b) of the Guidelines, to adjust the base level offense upward by three points.
Silverman’s final argument is that due process requires that uncharged acts and conduct, not the subject of a conviction, which is utilized in sentence determinations, must be proved by a standard greater than a preponderance of the evidence; further that the evidence must be of sufficient quality to ensure its reliability and to protect a defendant’s rights to confront his accuser. The Federal Rules of Evidence are not applicable to sentencing proceedings, Fed.R.Evid. 1101(d)(3), and so long as a defendant is provided an opportunity to explain or rebut uncorroborated hearsay evidence considered by the sentencing court, the court is free to consider such evidence. United States v. York, 830 F.2d 885, 893 (8th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 *1543U.S. 1074, 108 S.Ct. 1047, 98 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1988). Moreover, this court has ruled, albeit prior to the enactment of the Guidelines, that information pertaining to a defendant’s prior involvement in unprosecut-ed or unconvicted criminal activities is highly relevant to a court’s sentencing decision. United States v. Hill, 688 F.2d 18, 20 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1074, 103 S.Ct. 498, 74 L.Ed.2d 638 (1982). The due process requirements for trial are distinct from those at sentencing where all that is required is that the information considered by the sentencing court have a sufficient indicia of reliability. United States v. Marshall, 519 F.Supp. 751, 754 (D.Wis.1981), aff'd, 719 F.2d 887 (7th Cir.1983). As previously noted, the district court made a factual determination that the pre-sentence and sentencing evidence of Silver-man’s uncharged conduct was sufficiently reliable to merit consideration as relevant conduct in determining the base offense level. No higher standard is required. Moreover, Silverman was given the right to meaningfully participate in his sentence determination. His objections to the presen-tence report were considered and responded to by the probation department, which resulted in a two-point reduction in his offense level for his admission of accountability. He also was given the opportunity but declined to testify at the sentencing hearing. Finally, he was able to cross-examine the DEA agent testifying about the two informants’ and Mourning’s statements concerning Silverman’s drug-related activities. The DEA agent even offered to provide witnesses who would attest to the truth of the conduct alleged in the PIR. The fact that the judge found the government’s evidence more persuasive than Sil-verman’s does not taint the hearing with due process violations.
For the foregoing reasons, I would affirm.

. Silverman’s reliance on a district court opinion relative to dismissed counts is misplaced since the case on which he relies was reversed. United States v. Smith, 887 F.2d 104 (6th Cir.1989).