Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01265/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01265-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Taras Wallace
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Donald J. Stohr, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1265

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Taras Wallace, *

* [PUBLISHED]

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 14, 2004

Filed: May 23, 2005

___________

Before MELLOY, BRIGHT, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

The government charged Taras Wallace with being a convicted felon in

possession of a firearm. Wallace pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement. Wallace

objected to the presentence investigation report’s recommendation of a four-level

increase for using or possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense.

At sentencing, the district court1

 overruled Wallace’s objections regarding the

government’s use of out-of-court statements made by Antionette Jordan, finding the

statements reliable. The district court applied the four-level increase and sentenced

Appellate Case: 04-1265 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/23/2005 Entry ID: 1905726
-2-

Wallace to 110 months imprisonment. Wallace appeals and argues the district court

erred in using hearsay evidence in accessing an upward adjustment, violated his right

of confrontation in using the hearsay evidence to enhance his offense level, and

committed plain error in sentencing him in violation of United States v. Booker, 125

S. Ct. 738 (2005). We affirm.

I. Background

The government charged Wallace with being a convicted felon in possession

of a firearm. Wallace pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement. The presentence

investigation report recommended a four-level increase because Wallace possessed

or used the firearm in connection with another felony offense. Wallace objected to

the presentence investigation report’s recommendation of the four-level increase.

At sentencing, Officer Michael Stewart testified that Antionette Jordan told

him that Wallace choked her and struck her in the back of the head with a firearm.

The government presented a copy of Jordan’s written statement that she prepared in

the presence of Detective James Lisziewski of the Domestic Abuse Response Team.

Jordan’s written statement noted that Wallace hit her in the back of the head with a

gun. The government also played Jordan’s 911 call for the district court. Jordan did

not attend sentencing. 

The district court overruled Wallace’s objections and found the out-of-court

statements Jordan made were reliable and Wallace used or possessed the firearm in

connection with a felony assault. The district court added the four-level increase

finding Wallace used or possessed a firearm in connection with a felony offense. The

district court granted Wallace a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility.

The district court then sentenced Wallace to a 110-month term of imprisonment.

Wallace appeals.

Appellate Case: 04-1265 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/23/2005 Entry ID: 1905726
-3-

II. Discussion

Wallace argues the district court erred in using hearsay evidence in sentencing

him and accessing the four-level increase. As a “general proposition, a sentencing

judge may appropriately conduct an inquiry broad in scope, largely unlimited either

as to the kind of information he may consider, or the source from which it may

come.” Nichols v. United States, 511 U.S. 738, 747 (1994) (quotations omitted). The

commentary in the Sentencing Guidelines expressly allows reliable hearsay evidence

at sentencing, and courts have concluded hearsay is admissible in sentencing as long

as it bears some indicia of reliability. United States v. Shevi, 345 F.3d 675, 679 (8th

Cir. 2003) (reliable hearsay evidence may be considered at sentencing), cert. denied,

124 S. Ct. 1182 (2004).

Here, the district court heard the following hearsay evidence at sentencing:

Jordan’s 911 call, Jordan’s victim statement form, and Jordan’s sworn grand jury

testimony. In all of these statements Jordan asserted Wallace had hit her in the head

with a firearm. In addition to the above evidence, the government presented Officer

Stewart’s testimony (regarding Jordan’s statement that Wallace hit her on the head

with a firearm) and a photograph of Jordan showing marks around her neck. We

affirm, because all of this evidence has an indicia of reliability. See United States v.

Williams, 10 F.3d 910, 914 (1st Cir. 1993) (grand jury testimony is often considered

reliable hearsay evidence in light of the fact that it is testimony given under oath,

under penalty of perjury); United States v. Corbin, 998 F.2d 1377, 1386-87 (7th Cir.

1993) (stating the statements are made more reliable when a person who testified had

the opportunity to personally observe the witness who made the out-of-court

statement); United States v. Farnsworth, 92 F.3d 1001, 1010 (10th Cir.) (holding a

declarant’s out-of-court statements bear an indicia of reliability when a police officer

interviewed the declarant immediately after the altercation and the officer had the

opportunity to form an opinion as to the veracity of the statements), cert. denied, 519

U.S. 1034 (1996).

Appellate Case: 04-1265 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/23/2005 Entry ID: 1905726
-4-

Wallace next argues the district court violated his right of confrontation by

using out-of-court statements to enhance his offense level. This court has determined

that the confrontation clause does not apply in sentencing proceedings. See United

States v. Due, 205 F.3d 1030, 1033 (8th Cir. 2000). As long as the out-of-court

information relative to the circumstances of the crime bears an indicia of reliability,

then the sentencing court can consider it without providing the defendant with a right

to confrontation. United States v. Atkins, 250 F.3d 1203, 1212-13 (8th Cir. 2001)

(noting that the sentencing court has wide discretion as to the kind of information

considered or its source). As noted above, the information the district court relied on

has an indicia of reliability. No error is shown on this issue.

Finally, Wallace argues the district court violated Booker in enhancing his

offense level by finding he used or possessed the firearm in connection with a felony

assault. Wallace objected to the facts underlying the Booker issue (that the district

court relied on unreliable, hearsay evidence in finding he used a weapon in the

commission of another offense). Wallace’s objection did not preserve the Booker

error, because he did not couple his objection with a specific reference to Apprendi,

Blakely, or the Sixth Amendment; therefore, our review of Wallace’s Booker issue

is for plain error. See United States v. Pirani, No. 03-2871, 2005 WL 1039976 at *4

(8th Cir. Apr. 29, 2005) (noting that a defendant must couple an objection with a

specific reference to Apprendi, Blakely, or the Sixth Amendment in order to preserve

the Booker error).

To meet the plain error test, Wallace must show (1) error, (2) that is plain, (3)

that affects substantial rights. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-36 (1993).

If all three conditions are met, we may exercise our discretion to notice a forfeited

error only if the error also seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation

of judicial proceedings. Id. 

Appellate Case: 04-1265 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/23/2005 Entry ID: 1905726
-5-

As Pirani noted, it “is undisputed that the first two Olano factors are satisfied

here. The district court (understandably) committed Booker error by applying the

Guidelines as mandatory, and the error is plain, that is, clear or obvious, at this time.”

Pirani, 2005 WL 1039976 at *4. In order for Wallace to show the error affected his

substantial rights, he “must show a ‘reasonable probability,’ based on the appellate

record as a whole, that but for the error he would have received a more favorable

sentence.” Id. at *6. 

We have carefully reviewed the appellate record and determine that Wallace

cannot show the error affected his substantial rights as he cannot show a reasonable

probability he would have received a more favorable sentence. We affirm.

III. Conclusion

Affirmed.

BRIGHT, Circuit Judge, concurring.

I concur. I write separately because I believe it important to observe that, as

the Pirani opinion indicates, other courts disagree about the interpretation and

application of the plain error rule to the Sixth Amendment violation under Booker.

As a panel of the Eighth Circuit, we are bound by the Pirani interpretation and

construction of plain error for the Sixth Amendment violation under Booker until the

Supreme Court might rule otherwise.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1265 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/23/2005 Entry ID: 1905726