if erroneous at all. B. District Court’s Departure from the Guideline Range Second, Melton has argued that the district court erred in departing upward, pursuant to Guideline section 5K2.1, because the court, in effect, tried and sentenced him for first degree murder, a crime for which he has not been convicted. The government, on the other hand, has argued that the death of King was related to and resulted from Melton’s drug offense and that the alleged murder is therefore relevant conduct for sentencing purposes. Proof of conviction is not required, nor is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. A preponderance of the evidence will suffice for sentencing purposes. United States v. Powell, 886 F.2d 81, 85 (4th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1084, 110 S.Ct. 1144, 107 L.Ed.2d 1049 (1990) (<HOLDING>). The standard of review for departures from
holding that in order to satisfy due process findings made at sentencing need only be based upon a preponderance of the evidence recognizing that sentencing facts are based on the evidence and testimony presented at sentencing under a preponderance of the evidence standard holding that the government must prove the facts used in sentencing by a preponderance of the evidence holding that after alleyne v united states it is wellestablished that sentencing factors need not be charged in an indictment and need only be proved to the sentencing judge by a preponderance of the evidence holding that best interest of child need only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence