A couple minor issues with the summary, as there is some confusion of sentencing guideline ranges and statutory ranges for the particular offenses:
> To summarize, Apprendi v. New Jersey says that facts not found by a jury cannot be used to raise sentence maximums.
Correct.
> However, sentencing guidelines for the crimes Ulbricht was convicted of give a maximum life sentence. Therefore, using uncharged facts to inform sentencing is permissible because it doesn't actually increase the maximum possible sentence.
Two different things are in play here that seem to have been somewhat conflated:
Because the statutory punishment for the crimes Ulbricht was convicted of by the jury has a maximum life sentence, uncharged conduct proven by a preponderance of the evidence can be used to set sentencing within that maximum without violating the right to trial by jury, so the court did not act impermissibly by considering the uncharged conduct and setting life imprisonment having considered it.
Because the sentencing guidelines range for the offenses he was convicted of by the jury, without the uncharged conduct considered, also supported an offense level for which a life sentence is recommended for an offender with no prior convictions, the sentence of life imprisonment would have been reasonable for the drug crimes alone, even had the court not considered the uncharged murder for hire actions. That is, a life sentence would have been called for by the guidelines for the drug offenses alone.
> To summarize, Apprendi v. New Jersey says that facts not found by a jury cannot be used to raise sentence maximums.
Correct.
> However, sentencing guidelines for the crimes Ulbricht was convicted of give a maximum life sentence. Therefore, using uncharged facts to inform sentencing is permissible because it doesn't actually increase the maximum possible sentence.
Two different things are in play here that seem to have been somewhat conflated:
Because the statutory punishment for the crimes Ulbricht was convicted of by the jury has a maximum life sentence, uncharged conduct proven by a preponderance of the evidence can be used to set sentencing within that maximum without violating the right to trial by jury, so the court did not act impermissibly by considering the uncharged conduct and setting life imprisonment having considered it.
Because the sentencing guidelines range for the offenses he was convicted of by the jury, without the uncharged conduct considered, also supported an offense level for which a life sentence is recommended for an offender with no prior convictions, the sentence of life imprisonment would have been reasonable for the drug crimes alone, even had the court not considered the uncharged murder for hire actions. That is, a life sentence would have been called for by the guidelines for the drug offenses alone.