United States v. Ylli Gjeli, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 14894

Ylli Gjeli and Fatmir Mustafaraj were convicted after a joint trial for RICO-related offenses arising from a Philadelphia loan‑sharking and illegal gambling enterprise; Gjeli was characterized as a boss and Mustafaraj as enforcer.
Jury convicted Gjeli on 10 counts and Mustafaraj on 12 counts; both were acquitted on certain counts involving an alleged firearm possession and some extortion charges tied to an incident with victim Anthony Rodi.
At sentencing the District Court applied a 4‑level dangerous‑weapon enhancement based on threats with an axe, producing Guidelines ranges of 135–168 months; Gjeli received 168 months and Mustafaraj 147 months.
The probation office grouped multiple underlying racketeering offenses under Chapter 3 of the Guidelines, resulting in an aggregate 5‑level increase to offense level 33 for each defendant; defendants challenged grouping and preservation of objections under Rule 32.
The government obtained preliminary orders of forfeiture (joint and several) totaling over $5 million; defendants did not object below. The judgments omitted explicit forfeiture language, a clerical error correctable under Rule 36.

Issue	Appellants' Argument	Government/Respondent Argument	Held
Dangerous‑weapon enhancement (Sixth Amendment)	Gjeli/Mustafaraj: enhancement relied on acquitted conduct (axe incident) and thus violated the Sixth Amendment	Court: axe use was not an element of acquitted counts; district court may find sentencing facts by a preponderance; evidence corroborated Rodi	Affirmed — enhancement proper; no Apprendi violation and findings supported by preponderance standard
Guidelines grouping (RICO base offense level)	Mustafaraj: court erred by not resolving disputes over inclusion of certain Groups; both argued some Groups should be excluded	Government: court reasonably found resolution unnecessary under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(3)(B); exclusion would not change resultant Guidelines range	Affirmed — Rule 32 satisfied; any error harmless because excluded Groups would not have changed final range
Forfeiture (joint & several; Rule 32.2/Rule 36)	Gjeli/Mustafaraj: court failed to announce amount/include final forfeiture in judgment; joint and several liability improper	Government: defendants were notified at sentencing; clerical omission in judgment can be corrected, but joint and several relied on then‑controlling precedent	Vacated and remanded in part — judgments remanded to correct clerical omission and to reconsider forfeiture in light of Honeycutt (joint and several liability unauthorized); otherwise affirmed

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (holds facts that increase statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury)
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (clarifies Apprendi principle and statutory‑maximum focus)
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (renders Guidelines advisory; sentencing facts do not increase statutory maximum)
Watts v. United States, 519 U.S. 148 (a jury acquittal does not bar consideration of underlying conduct at sentencing)
Honeycutt v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1626 (defendant cannot be held jointly and severally liable for proceeds his co‑conspirator acquired but he did not)
United States v. Ciavarella, 716 F.3d 705 (3d Cir.) (sentence‑phase factfinding may rely on preponderance and consideration of acquitted conduct)
United States v. Pitt, 193 F.3d 751 (3d Cir.) (previously allowed joint and several forfeiture liability; superseded by Honeycutt)
United States v. Grier, 475 F.3d 556 (3d Cir. en banc) (standards for appellate review of Guidelines interpretation)