United States v. Mustafa, No. 11-3556 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseDefendant pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting mail fraud and was sentenced to 120 months' imprisonment. Defendant appealed his sentence, arguing that the district court erred by applying a preponderance of the evidence standard when determining defendant's relevant conduct for purposes of sentencing enhancements. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that due process never required applying more than a preponderance of the evidence standard for finding sentencing facts, even where the fact-finding had an extremely disproportionate impact on the defendant's advisory guidelines sentencing range.
Court Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Defendant's objection to use of uncharged relevant conduct at sentencing rejected.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.