The DEA can conjure up evidence and the Federal Courts can convict you on preponderences without an iota of tangible evidence. Then the judge says at sentencing,"well, it looks like he, the defendant, might have been at this other event even though testimony stated that the event was on another date", therefore this is relevant conduct and augment the sentence up to 23 years. This is, in fact, a gross violation of this defendant's 6th Amendment Rights. Furthermore, the standard used by the judge was less than a prepondernce of the evidence. Even though the U.S. Supreme Court ordered that Washington State violated Blakely's 6th Amendment Rights and ordered that the case be retried not inconsistent with its decision, the Federal Government, According to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, is immune from abiding by the Supreme Court ruling. In essence, the federal government can violate constitutional rights and federal judges can use relevant conduct to increase a defendant's sentence. It is amusing to remember government classes and the study of the judicial system and how unequivocable it was stated that the US Supreme Court was the highest court of the land and that its decisions would become case law that would be honored by all lower courts. The courts of Appeals seem to mock this. I may have not been paying attention or learned incorrectly when studying the judicial system and the US Supreme Court is not the highest court of the land and the Federal Government can violate the Constitution of the United States of America.