Background
Matthew McBraun appealed his ninety-six-month sentence imposed for drug possession and distribution convictions under Section twenty-one thousand eight hundred forty-one. He argued that the sentencing court improperly considered acquitted conduct in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause and due process.
The court’s reasoning
The panel concluded that McBraun’s arguments were foreclosed by binding Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent. The court cited United States v. Watts to reject Double Jeopardy and due process claims. It also relied on United States v. Mercado to reject Sixth Amendment arguments. The court found no clear error in the district court’s factual findings that McBraun’s distribution of narcotics was a contributing factor to the overdose death.
What it means going forward
The ruling reinforces that federal courts may consider acquitted conduct when determining sentences, provided the underlying conduct is supported by evidence.