Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03176/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03176-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Clifford Dallisser Sinclair
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Northern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.

2

The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District Judge for the

District of South Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3176

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the District

* of South Dakota.

* 

Clifford Dallisser Sinclair, *

* 

Defendant - Appellant. * 

___________

Submitted: January 8, 2007

Filed: January 31, 2007 

___________

Before MURPHY and SMITH, Circuit Judges, and READE,1

 District Judge.

___________

MURPHY, Circuit Judge.

Clifford Dallisser Sinclair was convicted by a jury of one count of illegal

reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the district court2

sentenced him to twenty one months imprisonment. He appeals, arguing that he was

Appellate Case: 06-3176 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/31/2007 Entry ID: 3273393
-2-

arrested illegally, that the evidence seized during his arrest should have been

suppressed, and that his criminal history was improperly calculated. We affirm. 

Sinclair does not dispute that an arrest warrant was issued before his arrest, but

he contends that his arrest was illegal because he was neither shown an arrest warrant

before he was taken into custody nor told that a warrant existed, citing Federal Rule

of Criminal Procedure 4(c)(3)(A). There was conflicting testimony about the arrest

at the suppression hearing. Special Agent Craig Scherer of the Bureau of Immigration

and Customs Enforcement testified that he showed Sinclair the warrant before he

arrested him and that this was consistent with his routine practice. Scherer also

described in detail the type and color of the folder in which he had carried the warrant

during the arrest. The magistrate judge who presided over the hearing expressly found

Scherer more credible than Sinclair, and the district court adopted the magistrate's

findings. A trial court is in the best position to evaluate the credibility of witnesses,

and its findings on credibility are "virtually unreviewable on appeal." United States

v. Heath, 58 F.3d 1271, 1275 (8th Cir. 1995) (district court did not clearly err by

crediting witness who contradicted another's testimony). We conclude that Sinclair's

arrest was not illegal and not in violation of Rule 4(c)(3)(A). There is therefore no

need to address his claim that the resulting evidence should be suppressed. 

Sinclair also challenges the use of a conviction for simple assault in calculating

his criminal history because he was not represented by counsel during the state court

proceeding on the assault charge. A state conviction for which the defendant did not

have counsel may be used to enhance a sentence if "counsel was validly waived or

was not otherwise constitutionally required." United States v. Early, 77 F.3d 242, 245

(8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (applying Nichols v. United States, 511 U.S. 738 (1994)

and upholding criminal history calculation that included uncounseled state conviction

when district court found defendant had waived right to counsel). The district court

Appellate Case: 06-3176 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/31/2007 Entry ID: 3273393
-3-

examined the state court judgment and found it demonstrated that Sinclair had waived

his right to a lawyer. We conclude the district court did not err in including this

conviction in Sinclair's criminal history calculation.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

_________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3176 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/31/2007 Entry ID: 3273393