United States v. Stephen Waltower, 643 F.3d 572

Background

Waltower was convicted of felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
The jury acquitted him of several drug-related charges, but the district court considered acquitted conduct at sentencing.
Police executed a warrant at 161 N. Lamon Ave, Chicago, finding a loaded 9mm Glock and drug paraphernalia at the apartment (though it was not Waltower's residence).
Post-search, Waltower gave self-incriminating statements to an officer after Miranda warnings were administered; he claimed he bought the gun and that drugs were for someone else.
At sentencing, the district court applied a four-level enhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony, based in part on the acquitted conduct, yielding a guideline range and a 120-month sentence (max).
Waltower challenged both the use of acquitted conduct at sentencing and the admissibility/ Miranda-based issues regarding his post-arrest statements.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May acquitted conduct be used at sentencing?	Watts allows acquitted conduct to inform the guideline range by a preponderance standard.	Using acquitted conduct violates due process and the Sixth Amendment.	Acquitted conduct may be used at sentencing under preponderance standard; no Sixth Amendment violation.
Is the use of acquitted conduct consistent with Booker and the advisory guidelines regime?	Watts remains valid post-Booker; guidelines advisory and allow such consideration within reasonableness.	Booker undermines the Watts framework and Sixth Amendment protections.	Watts remains good law; advisory guidelines permit acquitted-conduct consideration within reasonableness.
Proper calculation of the guidelines range—relevance of 1B1.3 and the 2K2.1(b)(6) enhancement	Acquitted conduct properly informs relevant conduct under 1B1.3; firearm near drugs justifies the enhancement.	No error in calculation; application note and proximity-based inference are valid.	The court properly applied 1B1.3 and 2K2.1(b)(6); evidence supported the enhancement.
Post-arrest statements and Miranda	Counsel should have challenged Miranda compliance; statements may be inadmissible.	Record shows Miranda warnings were given; ineffective-assistance collateral review is appropriate if raised.	No plain error; statements properly admitted; any IAC claim is a collateral matter.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148 (1997) (acquitted conduct can inform sentencing at preponderance standard)
Alabama v. Shelton, 535 U.S. 654 (2002) (due process on potential enhanced punishment based on underlying conduct)
Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (guidelines unconstitutional as mandatory; advisory regime permissible)
Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270 (2007) (clarified that the statutory maximum is the ceiling for a purely judicially found fact)
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) (foundation for Apprendi principles on sentencing facts)
Donelson, 695 F.2d 583 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (pre-guidelines practice of considering trial-related facts at sentencing)
United States v. Gobbi, 471 F.3d 302 (1st Cir. 2006) (acquitted conduct may be used at sentencing by preponderance standard)
United States v. Vaughn, 430 F.3d 518 (2d Cir. 2005) (post-Booker circuits permit acquitted-conduct calculation)
United States v. Grubbs, 585 F.3d 793 (4th Cir. 2009) (acquitted conduct permissible under guidelines regime)
United States v. Farias, 469 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 2006) (acquitted conduct permissible under preponderance standard)
United States v. White, 551 F.3d 381 (6th Cir. 2008) (treatment of acquitted conduct under Watts framework)
United States v. Mercado, 474 F.3d 654 (9th Cir. 2007) (support for acquitted-conduct reasoning post-Booker)
United States v. Magallanez, 408 F.3d 672 (10th Cir. 2005) (acquitted conduct consideration in guidelines)
United States v. Faust, 456 F.3d 1342 (11th Cir. 2006) (acquitted-conduct reasoning across circuits)
United States v. Settles, 530 F.3d 920 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (recognizes acquitted-conduct use; caution about fairness)