Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02358/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02358-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Myron Westley Shackelford
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2358

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Missouri.

Myron Westley Shackelford, *

* [PUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 13, 2006

Filed: September 5, 2006

___________

Before ARNOLD, JOHN R. GIBSON, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Myron Shackelford pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm.

See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). At sentencing, the district judge1

 imposed a four-level

enhancement for using or possessing a firearm in connection with another felony, see

U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5), namely threatening another person with a firearm, see Mo.

Rev. Stat. § 571.030.1(4). Mr. Shackelford challenges the enhancement, asserting that

the evidence supporting it was insufficient. We affirm.

Appellate Case: 05-2358 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/05/2006 Entry ID: 2085684
-2-

At Mr. Shackelford's sentencing hearing, he renewed his written objections to

the sections of his presentence report (PSR) that indicated that one of the firearms that

he had pleaded guilty to possessing had been used or possessed in connection with

another felony. The PSR stated that Mr. Shackelford had pointed the gun at his

brother, Dennis, in a threatening manner. In response to Mr. Shackelford's objections,

Officer Mike Rodgers of the Missouri State Highway Patrol took the stand. Officer

Rodgers, a member of a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms task force, testified

that while gathering information for the § 922(g)(1) charge against Mr. Shackelford,

he obtained evidence from the Texas County Sheriff's Department regarding the

alleged brandishing incident. He discussed the case with the primary investigating

officer, Deputy Matt Thompson, on two occasions and reviewed Deputy Thompson's

report of the occurrence. Based on that information, Officer Rodgers testified that

when law enforcement officers arrived at the Shackelford residence in response to a

domestic disturbance call, Dennis said that he had slammed a bedroom door on his

brother's fingers and that afterward Mr. Shackelford had retrieved a firearm from his

bedroom and pointed it at him. According to Officer Rodgers, Mr. Shackelford's

statements to Deputy Thompson corroborated Dennis's account.

Although both brothers were apparently intoxicated during the alleged

confrontation and while talking with police, and even though some of Officer

Rodgers's testimony may have been double hearsay, the district court determined that

the accounts of Mr. Shackelford pointing his gun at his brother were sufficiently

reliable to support an enhancement to Mr. Shackelford's sentence. Mr. Shackelford

challenges that determination.

Hearsay evidence, even double hearsay, can be used at sentencing proceedings

if it bears " 'sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy,' " United

States v. Wise, 976 F.2d 393, 402 (8th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 989 (1993)

(quoting U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3(a)). Here, the brothers' statements about the part each of

them played in the incident were statements against their penal interests, which places

Appellate Case: 05-2358 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/05/2006 Entry ID: 2085684
-3-

the statements within an exception to the hearsay rule. See Fed R. Evid. 804(b)(3).

In addition, what they told the police about the occurrence may well have qualified

as excited utterances made without the opportunity for reflection, another hearsay

exception. See Fed. R. Evid. 803(2). The fact that the brothers' statements qualified

for at least one exception from the hearsay rule renders them more reliable than they

otherwise would have been. In addition, the brothers independently provided the

police with consistent accounts of Mr. Shackelford pointing a gun at Dennis.

Furthermore, nearly all of Officer Rodgers's testimony about what Deputy Thompson

told him is corroborated by the deputy's report. We have no reason to believe that

Officer Rodgers would have been mistaken about the contents of Deputy Thompson's

report or misrepresented it, or that the deputy would have inaccurately conveyed the

brothers' statements to Officer Rodgers in their conversations. Given these

circumstances, we hold that Officer Rodgers's testimony about Mr. Shackelford

pointing the firearm at his brother bore sufficient indicia of reliability to support its

use in Mr. Shackelford's sentencing.

Affirmed.

______________________________ 

Appellate Case: 05-2358 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/05/2006 Entry ID: 2085684