Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01794/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01794-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Randy E. Woods
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-1794

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

 v. * District Court for the 

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Randy E. Woods, *

* 

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 16, 2009

Filed: March 3, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

RILEY, Circuit Judge.

Randy E. Woods appeals his sentence for being a felon in possession of a

firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). After Woods pled guilty to the crime,

the district court1

 found Woods possessed the firearm in connection with another

felony offense. The district court imposed a sentencing enhancement and denied

Woods a reduction for acceptance of responsibility because Woods denied the

additional relevant conduct. We affirm.

Appellate Case: 09-1794 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/03/2010 Entry ID: 3640311
-2-

I. BACKGROUND

In the dark hours of May 24, 2008, Deputy Sheriff Brannum (Deputy Brannum)

of the Carter County, Missouri, Sheriff’s Department knocked on the door of Woods’s

home, to arrest Woods for probation violations. Woods did not answer his door, and

after other attempts to contact Woods, Deputy Brannum resorted to surveillance. After

midnight, Deputy Brannum saw two people exit the residence and drive away in a car.

The deputy stopped the car and questioned the driver, Janet Burlbaugh. Burlbaugh told

Deputy Brannum she was Woods’s ex-girlfriend, she was inside the house when

Deputy Brannum arrived, and upon Deputy Brannum’s appearance, Woods turned off

the lights, moved Burlbaugh to the back of the house, and told her to stay quiet.

Agent John Taylor (Agent Taylor) of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and

Firearms later interviewed both Deputy Brannum and Burlbaugh. Agent Taylor

testified Burlbaugh told him, after Woods turned the lights off, “given the lighting, she

could observe that [Woods] was, what appeared to her to be, manipulating a firearm

as if assembling or loading it.” Burlbaugh reported Woods stated “something to the

effect that [Woods] was wanted and he didn’t have any intention of going back to

prison” and “it would be a shootout of some sort.” 

There was no shootout. Woods ignored further knocks on his door and calls to

his cellular telephone, but hours later Woods called, negotiated with, and surrendered

himself to the Carter County Sheriff. With Woods’s permission, deputies searched his

home and found a loaded Herbert Schmidt .22 caliber revolver (gun) and a box of

ammunition hidden in an airduct in a bathroom. Deputy Brannum asked Woods about

the gun in an interview shortly after his arrest. According to Agent Taylor, Woods told

Deputy Brannum “he did not want to go back to prison and had intended to shoot

anyone trying to arrest him or be killed in the process.” Deputy Brannum told Agent

Taylor that inside Woods’s home the “furniture had been rearranged, upended, such

as would appear to create barricades between . . . the front door and [Woods].” 

Appellate Case: 09-1794 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/03/2010 Entry ID: 3640311
-3-

A grand jury returned a one-count indictment against Woods on the charge of

being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).

Although Woods repeatedly admitted possessing the gun, he initially pled not guilty

to the charge of the indictment. Woods did not change his plea until the first day of

trial, when he entered a plea pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37

(1970) (allowing a defendant to plead guilty without admitting guilt by acknowledging

the government’s evidence is sufficient to obtain a conviction).

 

The United States Probation Office prepared a presentence investigation report

(PSR). Woods’s base offense level under the United States Sentencing Guidelines

(U.S.S.G. or Guidelines) was 24. See U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(2). The probation officer

recommended a four-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6) because

Woods used or possessed the gun with intent to use it in connection with another

felony offense—assault on a law enforcement officer—and recommended Woods

receive no adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. Based upon Woods’s total

offense level of 28, his criminal history category of IV, and the fact the statutory

maximum for the offense was 120 months, Woods’s advisory Guidelines range was

110 to 120 months imprisonment. 

At sentencing, Woods argued Burlbaugh’s statement was unreliable hearsay,

Woods accepted responsibility, and Woods’s criminal history category was overstated.

The district court rejected Woods’s arguments, adopted the PSR’s factual statements

and Guidelines calculations, and sentenced Woods to 110 months imprisonment, to be

served consecutive to any state sentence imposed for Woods’s probation violations,

and two years supervised release. 

II. DISCUSSION

Woods appeals his sentence, arguing the district court erred in (1) finding he

possessed a firearm in connection with another felony based upon unreliable hearsay,

(2) refusing to reduce his offense level to reflect his acceptance of responsibility under

Appellate Case: 09-1794 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/03/2010 Entry ID: 3640311
2

At sentencing, Woods requested a downward departure under U.S.S.G.

§ 4A1.3(b)(1), and argues the district court erred in not granting such a departure on

appeal, but in a point heading in his brief preceding his argument for a departure,

Woods states the court erred in failing to grant a downward variance. This minimal,

vague reference is insufficient to raise the variance issue, which we hereby consider

waived. See Gebresadik v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 846, 851 n.6 (8th Cir. 2007)

(explaining arguments not briefed on appeal are waived). 

-4-

U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, and (3) failing to grant a downward departure2

 based on Woods’s

suggestion his criminal history category was overstated. “We review a district court’s

interpretation and application of the [G]uidelines de novo and its factual findings

regarding enhancements for clear error.” United States v. Pate, 518 F.3d 972, 975 (8th

Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v. Aguilar, 512 F.3d 485, 487 (8th Cir. 2008)). 

Woods contends the district court erred when it found Woods used the gun in

connection with another felony based on Burlbaugh’s unreliable hearsay statements as

reported by Agent Taylor. At sentencing, a district court “may consider relevant

information without regard to its admissibility under the rules of evidence applicable

at trial, provided that the information has sufficient indicia of reliability to support its

probable accuracy.” U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3(a). In other words, relevant hearsay testimony

may be considered if sufficiently reliable reasons demonstrate the testimony is

probably accurate. See United States v. Sharpfish, 408 F.3d 507, 511 (8th Cir. 2005).

“The determination of whether hearsay evidence is sufficiently reliable to support a

sentencing decision depends on the facts of the particular case, and is committed to the

sound discretion of the district court.” United States v. Cassidy, 6 F.3d 554, 557 (8th

Cir. 1993) (internal citation omitted). 

Woods asserts the district court should not have believed Burlbaugh when she

said Woods had a firearm and threatened a shootout with police. Woods contends

(1) Burlbaugh is incredible because she is Woods’s ex-girlfriend, (2) Agent Taylor did

not know whether Burlbaugh was on parole or probation, (3) Agent Taylor did not

Appellate Case: 09-1794 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/03/2010 Entry ID: 3640311
3

Woods did not question the probable accuracy of Deputy Brannum’s

statements to Agent Woods at sentencing. To the extent he does so on appeal, we find

no plain error. See United States v. Linderman, 587 F.3d 896, 899 (8th Cir. 2009)

(citing Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b)) (standard of review). 

-5-

know anything about Burlbaugh’s criminal history, and (4) Burlbaugh’s statements that

the lights were off and that she could see Woods manipulating a firearm contradict

each other. Woods concludes by arguing “unreliable allegations such as Burlbaugh’s

do not have sufficient indicia of reliability to support their probable accuracy.” 

The record contains abundant evidence Burlbaugh’s statements were probably

accurate. Agent Taylor’s hearsay statements are corroborated by the fact the deputies

observed Burlbaugh leaving Woods’s house in the middle of the night, by the presence

of the gun in Woods’s house, by Deputy Brannum’s finding the furniture in Woods’s

house arrayed in a defensive formation, and by Woods’s separate confession to Deputy

Brannum that he intended to shoot anyone trying to arrest him.3

 On this record, the

district court did not abuse its discretion in finding Burlbaugh’s statements to Agent

Taylor were probably accurate and in allowing Agent Taylor’s hearsay testimony. 

Agent Taylor’s credibility was also at issue during Woods’s sentencing hearing,

and the district court necessarily found Agent Taylor credible. “A district court’s

assessment of a witness’s credibility is almost never clear error given that court’s

comparative advantage at evaluating credibility.” United States v. Wahlstrom, 588

F.3d 538, 542 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. Killingsworth, 413 F.3d 760,

763 (8th Cir. 2005)). The district court did not clearly err in finding Agent Taylor

credible, or in finding Woods possessed the gun with an intent to use the weapon in

connection with another felony, assaulting a law enforcement officer. 

The district court also found Woods ineligible for a sentence reduction based

upon acceptance of responsibility. Although Woods early admitted he possessed the

gun, he waited until the first day of trial before changing his plea and then entered an

Appellate Case: 09-1794 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/03/2010 Entry ID: 3640311
-6-

Alford plea. The district court found Woods falsely denied relevant offense conduct,

based on the court’s finding Woods possessed the gun with intent to use it to assault

law enforcement officers. Our review of the record reveals no clear error in the district

court’s findings. 

Lastly, Woods faults the district court for failing to grant a downward departure

pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(b)(1), because of Woods’s assertedly overstated criminal

history. “[W]e have no authority to review the district court’s denial of [Woods’s]

request for a downward departure because [Woods] does not argue that the court had

an unconstitutional motive in denying his request and because the court recognized that

it had the authority to depart downward.” United States v. Anderson, 570 F.3d 1025,

1034 (8th Cir. 2009) (citing United States v. Saddler, 538 F.3d 879, 889-90 (8th Cir.),

cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 770 (2008)). To the extent Woods’s same arguments could be

applied to a variance, we do not perceive any abuse of discretion by the district court.

See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007) (standard of review). 

III. CONCLUSION

We affirm Woods’s sentence.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-1794 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/03/2010 Entry ID: 3640311