U.S. v. Jett

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendants to 230-month terms of incarceration on conspiracy in violation of Hobbs Act charge, even though defendants had received lower sentence on said charge at original sentencing hearing, but then were given new sentencing hearing after conviction on another charge had been vacated on direct appeal. Ct. rejected defendants’ argument that they were entitled to new sentencing hearing because Dist. Ct. had failed to explain why same section 3553(a) factors and same evidence produced higher sentence on conspiracy charge, since: (1) new sentence fell at almost same spot on applicable Guideline range as prior sentence; and (2) there is no authority to support defendants’ argument that Dist. Ct. had to give them same sentence on conspiracy charge at re-sentencing or explain difference, especially where vacatur of conviction on other charge altered sentencing calculus. Moreover, although Dist. Ct. erred during sentencing by applying preponderance of evidence standard, as opposed to reasonable doubt standard to find that defendant had actually conspired to commit each offense that was object of charged conspiracy, any error was harmless, because Dist. Ct. made clear that it would have imposed same sentence on each defendant even if higher reasonable doubt standard applied.