United States Sixth Circuit

Sentencing on the jury verdict alone was appropriate, without additional facts such as drug quantities that were determined at sentencing under the "preponderance" standard, where the indictment and jury instructions uniformly and consistently directed the jury to decide if defendant conspired to distribute both marijuana and cocaine, and to return a guilty verdict only if the jurors unanimously agreed beyond a reasonable doubt that he had done so.

Appellate Information

• Argued 11/30/2000
• Decided 02/14/2001
• Published 02/14/2001

Judges

• Before: NORRIS and CLAY, Circuit Judges;  ROSEN, District Judge.

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• William E. Hunt (argued and briefed), Office of U.S. Attorney, Cincinnati, OH, for Plaintiff-Appellee., Philip E. Pitzer (argued and briefed), Cincinnati, OH, Clayton G. Napier (argued and briefed), Hamilton, OH, for Defendants-Appellants.