T he Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, United States District Judge for th e 1 Western District of Arkansas. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-3606

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Arkansas. Michael Ed Brewer, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: March 26, 1998 Filed: March 27, 1998

___________ Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circui t Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Michael Ed Brewer pleaded guilty to one count of distributin g methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (1994), and to one count o f being a felon

in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (1994). The District Court sentenced Brewer to 121 months imprisonment and three year s 1 supervised release. In this direct appeal of his sentence, Brewer a rgues that the District-2-

Court & s reliance on hea

rsay evidence at sentencing was erroneous, and violated his due process and confrontation rights. We disagree and therefore affirm.
At sentenc ing, the District Court considered the testimony of an FBI agent, who had participated in Brewer & s investigation, as to the substance of interviews the agent or other in vestigators had conducted with third persons. Based on this testimony, th e District Court overruled Brewer & s objections to the drug-quantity determi nation indicated in th e presentence report and to a recommended increase under U.S. Sentencin g Guidelines Manual § 3B1.1(a) (1997) for Brewer & s aggravating role in the offense.
District courts may consider hearsay at sentencing, without regard to it s admi ssibility at trial, so long as the testimony has sufficient indicia of reliability t o suppo rt that it was probably accurate. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manua l § 6A1.3(a), p.s. (1997); United States v. Drapeau , 121 F.3d 344, 351 (8th Cir. 1997). The particular circumstances of a case dictate whether challenged hearsay is reliabl e enough to be used at sentencing, see Drapeau , 121 F.3d at 351, a determination w e review for abuse of discretion, see United States v. Stavig , 80 F.3d 1241, 1247 (8th Cir. 1996).
We conclude the District Court did not abuse its discretion in this case because the statements given to investigators were largely consistent with one another, and were corrobora tedin part by Brewer & s admissions and the circumstances surrounding th e arrest of one of the persons th e FBI agent interviewed. In addition, the declarants were providing information against their pen al interests. Cf. United States v. Cassidy , 6 F.3d 554, 557 (8th Cir. 1993) (holding that there was no abuse of discretion in considering detective & s testimony as to what third person stated during debriefing; declarant made in criminating statements in presence of her attorney while awaiting sentencing i n declara nt & s own case, statements were consistent with facts discovered durin g investigation and were corroborated by seized physical evidence and defendant & s own-3-

sentencing testimony, and this court has upheld c onsideration of hearsay evidence under more “tenuous and unclear circumstances”). Although Brewer provided contrary tes timony, we cannot say that the District Court erred in choosing to discredit it. Se e United States v. Adipietro , 983 F.2d 1468, 1472 (8th Cir. 1993). Finally, Brewer & s Confrontation Clause argument is foreclosed by United States v. Wise , 9 76 F.2d 393, 401 (8th Cir. 1992) (en banc) (right to confront witnesses does not attach at sentencing), c ert. denied , 507 U.S. 989 (1993); and given the approximate three-foldincrease in Brewer & s sentence attributable to the challenged hearsay, we do not think due process concerns were triggered in this case, see id. (holding that in certain instanc es sentence may so overwhelm or be so disproportionate to punishment that would otherwise be imposed that due process concerns must be addressed). Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.