Chong

MEMORANDUM *

Peter Chong appeals the sentence imposed following his convictions for participating in a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (c), a RICO conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (d), and various extortion counts, 18 U.S.C. §§ 892 , 894, 1951. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we need not recount it here.

We reject Chong’s argument that the district court violated his due process rights by considering conduct underlying the acquitted murder-for-hire count during its analysis of 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) sentencing factors. “[A] jury’s verdict of acquittal does not prevent the sentencing court from considering conduct underlying [an] acquitted charge.... ” United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148,157 , 117 S.Ct. 633 , 136 L.Ed.2d 554 (1997); United States v. Mercado, 474 F.3d 654, 657 (9th Cir.2007) (concluding that the “core principle of Watts ” was unaltered by United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 , 125 S.Ct. 738 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and the creation of advisory guidelines).

Likewise, we reject Chong’s only remaining contention that…