Sentencing and "outrageous government conduct"

A related doctrine on "outrageous government conduct" as it relates to sting operations that increase the number or severity of defendant's offenses, which in turn increase defendant's punishment. See, e.g., United States v. Ciszkowski, 492 F.3d 1264, 1270 (11th Cir. 2007):

While our Circuit does not recognize sentencing entrapment as a viable defense, we do recognize the outrageous government conduct defense, and we have considered sentencing manipulation as a viable defense. United States v. Sanchez, 138 F.3d 1410, 1413-14 (11th Cir. 1998). When a defendant makes a sentencing entrapment claim, he argues that, although predisposed to commit a minor or lesser offense, he has been entrapped into committing a greater offense subject to greater punishment. Id. at 1414. Sentencing entrapment focuses on the defendant's conduct; in contrast, the defenses of outrageous government conduct and sentencing factor manipulation focus on the government's behavior. Id. at 1413-14. Outrageous government conduct occurs when law enforcement obtains a conviction for conduct beyond the defendant's predisposition by employing methods that fail to comport with due process guarantees. Id. at 1413. Under this standard, the conduct must be so outrageous that it is fundamentally unfair. United States v. Ofshe, 817 F.2d 1508, 1516 (11th Cir. 1987). Similarly, sentencing factor manipulation occurs when the government's manipulation of a sting operation, even if insufficient to support a due process claim, requires that the manipulation be filtered out of the sentencing calculus. Sanchez, 138 F.3d at 1414. Outrageous government conduct would necessitate the reversal of a defendant's conviction, while sentencing factor manipulation would simply reduce the sentence applied to his conduct. Ciszkowski's argument is best characterized as a sentencing factor manipulation claim.

See also Marc  D. Esterow, Note, Lead Us Not into Temptation: Stash House Stings and the Outrageous Government Conduct Defense, 8 Drexel L. Rev. Online 1, 28-33 (2016) (describing "outrageous government conduct" defense in the context of "reverse-sting" operations particularly by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives).