Circuit split · criminal procedure
Whether relevant conduct at sentencing must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, rather than a preponderance of the evidence, when it has an extreme or disproportionate effect on the sentence
1 federal appellate case on this question, each acknowledging the disagreement in its own words.
- United States v. Hopper177 F3D 824
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · May 20, 1999
“at 156-57 (recognizing, but not addressing, a split in the Circuits as to whether relevant conduct must be proven by clear and convincing evidence in extreme circumstances).” — Acknowledges a circuit split
Empirical analysis of this case →
The other side of the split
Decisions the acknowledging court(s) named as the opposing or joined side, quoted in the acknowledging opinion's own words.
- Joined by · 9th Cir.United States v. Restrepo946 F.2d 654
“Given the relative shortness of George Reed’s sentence, a potential increase of 48 months satisfies the Restrepo extremely disproportionate impact test.” — United States v. Hopper, acknowledging the split
- Discussed · 3d Cir.United States v. Kikumura918 F.2d 1084
“Kikumura, 918 F.2d 1084 , 1100-01 (3d Cir.1990) (noting that the preponderance of evidence standard would satisfy due process when the result is a four-level increase in offense level).” — United States v. Hopper, acknowledging the split
What the split turns on
- Anchor precedents:
- United States v. Watts519 U.S. 148
- Statutes:
- § 1505
- Doctrines & tests:
- Restrepo extremely disproportionate impact test
Cases are grouped by the legal question they announce a split on, classified from the court's own acknowledgment sentence. Verified acknowledgments only. Counter-side decisions are extracted from the acknowledging opinions' own text and linked only when the citation resolves in this corpus. See all circuit splits.