United States v. Louchart, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 10619

Louchart was charged with conspiracy to steal firearms (count one) and two counts of receiving and selling stolen firearms (counts four and five).
Counts four and five alleged more than 50 and about 25 firearms, respectively; Louchart pled guilty to counts four and five without a plea agreement.
The plea included a factual basis where Louchart admitted 13 revolvers and 3 long guns were sold, totaling 16 or 17 guns, not the numbers in the indictment.
The Presentence Report attributed more than 200 firearms to Louchart based on related conduct, leading to a ten-level enhancement.
The district court later held Louchart accountable for 75 firearms charged in the indictment, relying on the plea and the indictment, and sentenced him to a total of 162 months.
On appeal, Louchart challenged the use of the 75-firearm figure, arguing the plea did not admit that quantity and that Rule 32 findings were required.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the guilty plea admit the 75 firearms for sentencing?	Louchart	United States	No; plea did not admit non-essential facts; remand required
Can the district court rely on relevant conduct beyond admitted facts without proper Rule 32 findings?	Louchart	United States	Remand for proper Rule 32 findings and resentence

United States v. White, 551 F.3d 381 (6th Cir.2008) (allows relevant conduct-based enhancements with proof by preponderance)
United States v. Cazares, 121 F.3d 1241 (9th Cir.1997) (plea admissions do not automatically admit non-essential indictment facts)
United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563 (U.S. 1989) (guilty plea encompasses elements and necessary facts to sustain guilt and sentence)
United States v. Gilliam, 987 F.2d 1009 (4th Cir.1993) (indictment quantities not necessarily admitted if not elements of the crime)
United States v. Ross, 502 F.3d 521 (6th Cir.2007) (Rule 32(i)(3)(B) requires ruling on controverted matters at sentencing)