Whether the government must prove facts necessary for a vulnerable-victim sentencing enhancement by a preponderance of the evidence

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Question Number One The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (sometimes referred to as “the Fifth Circuit” or “the Appellate Court”) upheld on appeal a sentencing enhancement for an alleged vulnerable victim imposed by the District Court to the sentencing Guidelines calculations used to sentence the petitioner, Alhan Sanchez, for conspiracy to take hostages. However, the Fifth Circuit did not impose any burden on the government to establish facts needed for the enhancement. Indeed, the Appellate Court was silent on the crucial issue of what was necessary for the imposition of the “vulnerable victim” for the imposition of the enhancement to be properly applied. As discussed below, it is well established by this Court that the government must shoulder the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, the facts necessary to support a sentencing enhancement. See e.g., United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148, 156 (1997); McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79, 91 (1986); Meachumv. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224 (1976). The Fifth Circuit did not include the application of this rule to uphold the vulnerable victim enhancement. Mr. Sanchez therefore respectfully contends the Appellate Court in affirming the decision of the District Court has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court. A compelling reason is thus presented in support of discretionary review by this Honorable Court. See S.CT.R. 10 (providing that i compelling reasons may exist for exercise of Court’s discretionary jurisdiction when decision of Appellate Court is in conflict with decisions of this Court). Question Number Two On direct appeal to the Appellate Court, Mr. Sanchez argued he should have received aminor or mitigating role downward adjustment to his sentence under the Guidelines. The action by the Fifth Circuit reflects that the Appellate Court did not apply the definition of minor or minimal party under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. In this regard, Mr. Sanchez was “among” the less culpable. Respectfully, the Fifth Circuit has hence decided an important federal question in a way which conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court. A compellingreason is thus presented in support of discretionary review by this Honorable Court. See S.CT.R. 10. Mr. Sanchez therefore respectfully requests that this Court grant this petition for Writ of Certiorari and allow this case to proceed to further briefing and ultimately resentencing with a reduction for minor/minimal party status. ii