context: Defendant argues that sentencing him on the basis, in part, of an uncharged shooting is unconstitutional. He contends he is being punished for the shooting without a jury having determined beyond a reasonable doubt that he shot victim or the other procedural protections which would apply had defendant been indicted and tried for the shooting. We have rejected similar arguments and adhere to that position.
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.identifier: 873 F.2d 437, 441-42
citation_a.parenthetical: government need not prove facts used in sentencing beyond a reasonable doubt
citation_a.sentence: United States v. Wright, 873 F.2d 437, 441-42 (1st Cir.1989) (government need not prove facts used in sentencing beyond a reasonable doubt).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.parenthetical: sentencing by considering relevant, uncharged conduct under U.S.S.G. SS lB1.3(a
citation_b.sentence: See also United States v. Galloway, 976 F.2d 414 (8th Cir.1992) (sentencing by considering relevant, uncharged conduct under U.S.S.G. § lB1.3(a)(2) does not violate the constitutional rights to indictment, jury trial, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt); McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 2411, 91 L.Ed.2d 67 (1986) (factors used to raise a minimum sentence below the statutory maximum need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt; preponderance standard satisfies due process and right to jury trial is not implicated).