characteristics, see id. § lBl.l(b), and adjustments, see id. § lBl.l(c), (e), it incorporated several real offense factors into the determination of the final offense level of any particular defendant. Third, by designating only a few offense-related factors not otherwise mentioned in the guidelines as irrelevant for sentencing purposes, it consciously chose not to foreclose departure on the basis of most factors not expressly taken into consideration by the Guidelines’ specific offense characteristics and adjustments. See id. Ch. 1, Pt. A, intro., 4(b); see also Breyer, supra, at 14. Though long recognized as a practical necessity, real offense sentencing can create the potential for significant unfairness. This is so because every factual consideration deemed rele (3d Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). At trial, a jury may consider evidence only
holding that the proper standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence holding that the preponderance standard is generally constitutional recognizing that sentencing facts are based on the evidence and testimony presented at sentencing under a preponderance of the evidence standard holding that under the advisory guidelines a district court should resolve factual disputes at sentencing by applying the preponderance of the evidence standard holding that the preponderance standard is generally appropriate in guidelines sentencing