UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
ROBERT M. AVERI, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A district court may consider evidence of a defendant's conduct relating to counts on which the defendant was acquitted at trial when sentencing under the Sentencing Guidelines.
Dr. Robert Averi was convicted of failing to maintain adequate inventory records of controlled substances. The sentencing judge considered evidence re…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Relevant Conduct cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
In this appeal, Dr. Robert Averi challenges on several grounds his conviction and sentence for failing to maintain adequate inventory records of controlled substances. The whole appeal is without merit.1 We write, however, only about the issue raised by Dr. Averi’s attack on his sentence: whether a district court, in sentencing a defendant under the Sentencing Guidelines, may consider evidence of the defendant’s conduct relating to counts on which the defendant was indicted but acquitted at trial? We answer this question “yes” and, therefore, affirm.2
Accord United States v. Rodriguez-Gonzalez, 899 F. 2d 177 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 127, 112 L.Ed.2d 95 (1990); United States v. Dawn, 897 F. 2d 1444 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 111 S.Ct. 389, 112 L.Ed.2d 400 (1990); United States v. Mocciola, 891 F. 2d 13 (1st Cir.1989); United States v. Isom, 886 F. 2d 736 (4th Cir.1989); United States v. Juarez-Ortega, 866 F. 2d 747 (5th Cir.1989).
Acquitted conduct may be considered by a sentencing court because a verdict of acquittal demonstrates a lack of proof sufficient to meet a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard — a standard of proof higher than that required for consideration of relevant conduct at sentencing. See, e.g., Mocciola, 891 F. 2d at 16; Isom, 886 F. 2d at 738 & n. 3; Juarez-Ortega, 866 F. 2d at 749; see also Dowling v. United States, — U.S.-, 110 S.Ct. 668, 672-73, 107 L.Ed.2d 708 (1990) (acquittal in criminal case does not preclude government from relitigating issue when it is presented in subsequent action governed by lower standard of proof).
This court has already held in the context of a pre-guidelines sentencing that “an acquittal does not bar a sentencing court from considering the acquitted conduct in imposing sentence.” United States v. Funt, 896 F. 2d 1288, 1300 (11th Cir.1990). We have also rejected the argument that the guidelines require a new, more stringent standard of proof; the preponderance of the evidence standard necessary to establish relevant conduct before that conduct could be considered in sentencing under pre-guidelines law remains the standard of proof required under the guidelines. United States v. Castellanos, 904 F. 2d 1490, 1494-95 (11th Cir.1990). Thus, because the standard of proof for consideration of relevant conduct remains the same for sentencing under the guidelines as it was under pre-guidelines law (and therefore remains lower than the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard on which defendant's acquittal is based), the holding of Funt — that facts relating to acquitted conduct may be considered in imposing sentence — also remains the rule.
AFFIRMED.
. In addition to attacking his sentence as discussed in the text. Dr. Averi also challenges: (1) the sufficiency of the evidence that he "knowingly” failed to comply with statutory record-keeping requirements; (2) the trial court’s denial of his motion for relief from prejudicial join-der; and (3) the trial court's denial of his motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence. The evidence was sufficient, and no error of law has been shown on the motions.
. Dr. Averi was indicted but acquitted on four counts of distributing a controlled substance to a minor for a non-medical purpose. The judge imposing sentence for the record-keeping offense imposed the maximum sentence in the guideline range because he concluded that "a preponderance of the evidence showed” that Dr. Averi had distributed some of the controlled substances for non-legitimate purposes. In reaching this conclusion, the district court considered evidence introduced at trial relating to counts of the indictment on which Averi was acquitted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148 (U.S. 1997)…. 2d 1330, 1332-1333 (CA7 1990); United States v. Dawn, 897 F. 2d 1444, 1449-1450 (CA8), cert. denied, 498 U. S. 960 (1990); United States v. Coleman, 947 F. 2d 1424, 1428-1429 (CA10 1991), cert. denied, 503 U. S. 972 (1992); United States v. Averi, 922 F. 2d 765, 765-766 (CA11 1991) (per curiam). See McMillan, 477 U. S., at 88 (upholding use of preponderance standard where there was no allegation that the sentencing enhancement was “a tail which wags the dog of the substantive offense”); Kinder v. United S…
-
United States v. Duncan, 400 F.3d 1297 (11th Cir. 2005)…ce.” United States v. Barakat, 130 F. 3d 1448, 1452 (11th Cir.1997) (citing United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148, 153, 117 S.Ct. 633, 636, 136 L.Ed.2d 554 (1997); United States v. Frazier, 89 F. 3d 1501, 1506 (11th Cir.1996); United States v. Averi, 922 F. 2d 765, 766 (11th Cir.1991)). In United States v. Watts, the Supreme Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause permitted a court to consider acquitted conduct in sentencing a defendant under the Guidelines because “consideration of information about the…
-
United States v. Barakat, 130 F.3d 1448 (11th Cir. 1997)…f the evidence. See United States v. Watts, 515 U.S. 389, -, 117 S.Ct. 633, 636, 136 L.Ed.2d 554, reh’g denied, - U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 1024, 136 L.Ed.2d 900 (1997); United States v. Frazier, 89 F. 3d 1501, 1506 (11th Cir.1996); United States v. Averi, 922 F. 2d 765, 766 (11th Cir.1991). Courts have uniformly rejected the Double Jeopardy and Due Process arguments Barakat makes, because “the defendant is punished only for the fact that the present offense was carried out in a manner that warrants increased puni…
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342 (U.S. 1990)
- United States v. Mocciola, 891 F.2d 13 (1st Cir. 1989)
- United States v. Esau Juarez-Ortega, 866 F.2d 747 (5th Cir. 1989)
- United States v. Castellanos, 904 F.2d 1490 (11th Cir. 1990)
- United States v. Rodriguez-Gonzalez, 899 F.2d 177 (2d Cir. 1990)
- United States v. Funt, 896 F.2d 1288 (11th Cir. 1990)
- United States v. Isom, 886 F.2d 736 (4th Cir. 1989)
- United States v. Dawn, 897 F.2d 1444 (8th Cir. 1990)