N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. DANNY R

AY HENDER SON, Jr., De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-30157

D.C . No. 4:15-c r-00248-B LW -1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ida

ho B . Ly nn W inm ill, C hie f Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm i tte d

Oc tobe r 6, 2017 Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : PAEZ a

nd B EA, C irc uit Judge s, a nd ANELLO, ** Distric t Judge
. Danny He nde rson a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s 240-m onth se nte nc e . W e
a ffirm
. 

# FIL E D OCT 26 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble M ic ha e l M . Ane l lo, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de s igna tion.He nde rson ple d guilty to posse ssion, distribution, a nd re c e ipt of se xua lly
e xplic it im a ge s of m inors. As pa rt of the pre se nte nc e inve stiga tion, He nde rson’ s
m othe r, F.H., inform e d a

psy c hologist, a

nd la te r the probation offic e r, tha t He nde rson ha d

m ole s te d a

y oung c hild whilein foste r c a re . The pre se nte nc e inve stiga tion re port re c om

m e nde d a patte rn-of-a c tivity

guide line s e nha

nc e m e nt ba se d on the foste r c are inc ide nt a nd a 2002 sta te c onvic tion of le wd c onduc t with
a c hild, for whic h He nde rson se rve d te n y e ars in prison. At se nte nc ing, thedistric t c o urt did not im pose the re c om

m e nde d five -le ve l
e nha nc e m e nt. The c ourt c onc lude d tha t without e xtrinsic c orroborat ion, F.H.’ s sta te m e nts we re not suffic ie ntly re lia ble to e sta

blish tha t the foste r c are inc i de nt
oc c urre d by

c le ar an d c onvinc ing e vide nc e . 1 The c ourt, howe ve r, c onside re d the foste r c are inc ide nt a s pa

rt of He nde rson’ s history

and c ha ra c te ristic s unde r 18 U.S.C . § 3553(a )(1), in whic h suc h fa c ts m ay be e sta blishe d by

a pre ponde ranc e of the e vide n c e . Se e Unite d State s v . Dare , 425 F.3d 634, 642 (9th C i r. 2005). On a ppe a l, He nde rson a

rgue s tha t the distric t c ourt’ s c onside ra tion of the foste r c are inc ide nt de prive d him of due proc e ss. To suc c e e d on his due proc e ss

1 “ [W ] he n a

se nte nc ing fa c tor ha s a

n e xtre m e ly

disproportiona

te e ffe c t on the s e nte n c e re lative to the offe nse of c onvic t ion, the gove rnm e nt m a y have to prove the fa c tor by c l e ar and c onvinc ing e vide nc e .” Unite d State s v . Fe lix , 561 F.3d 1036, 1045 (9th C ir. 2009) (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d). 2c la im , He nde rson “ m u st e sta blish thec ha lle nge d inform ation is (1) fa lse or
unre lia ble , a n d (2) de m onstra

bly m a de the ba sis for the se nte n c e . ” Unite d State s v . Vande rw e rfhorst , 576 F.3d 929, 935–36 (9th C ir. 2009) (inte rna l quota tion m arks
om i tte d). “ [T] h e distric t c o urt m ay c onside r a wide va

rie ty of inform ation a

t
se nte nc ing tha

t c ould not otherwise be c onside re d at tria l” and “ is not bound by the rule s of e vide nc e . ” Id . at 935 (c iting 18 U.S.C . § 3661; Fe d. R . Evid. 1101(d)(3)). Due proc e ss re quire s only tha t “ som e m inim a l indic ia

of re l ia bility a c c om pa ny a he arsay sta t e m e n t .” Unite d State

s v . Pe tty , 982 F.2d 1365, 1369 (9th C ir. 1993). He nde rson c o n te nds tha

t his m othe r’ s he arsay

sta te m e nts we re
una c c om pa nie d by m inim a l indic ia

of re lia bility be c a use the y la c ke d a ny e x trinsic
c orroboration, se e U

nite d State

s v . Egge , 223 F.3d 1128, 1132–33 (9th C ir. 2000); Unite d State s v . Ponc e , 51 F.3d 820, 828 (9th C ir. 1995), a nd c onc e rne d

an inc i de nt tha

t oc c urre d thirty

y e ars a go. He a lso a

rgue s tha t the foste r c a

re inc ide nt
wa s de m o nstra

b ly m a de the ba sis for the se nte nc e . W e c onc lude tha

t F.H.’ s sta

te m e nts we re suffic ie ntly

re lia ble to be c re dite d for ge ne ra l se nte nc ing purpose s, a nd the re fore we ne e d not de c ide whe the r the foste r c are inc ide nt wa s de m onstra bly m a de the ba sis for the se nte nc e . Unlike the he arsay de c la rants in Ponc e a nd Egge , F.H. is not a

c o-de fe n da

nt or pe rson who
a ide d the de fe nda

nt’ s ille ga l a c tivity
. W e c an disc e rn no im prope r m otive be hind
3F.H.’ s sta

te m e nts, nor doe s He nde rson sugge st tha t one e xiste d. To the c ontra ry , the re c ord re fle c t s tha

t F.H.’ s sta

te m e nts we re a g a inst he r inte re st. As thedistric t
c ourt note d, He nde rson a

nd his m othe r hav e a

m e aningful re lationship, a nd he live d with he r and a ssiste d in c a ring for he r prior to his a

rre s t. Thus, minim a l indic ia of re l ia bility a c c om pa nie d F.H.’ s sta

t e m e nts. That the foste r c are inc ide nt oc c urre d thirty y e ars a go doe s not re nde r F.H.’ s sta te m e nts unre lia

ble . Pre se n te nc e inve stiga tion re ports routine ly re ly on fa m ily inte rvie ws to gle an inform ation a bout a de fe nda nt’ s history and c ha

ra c te ristic s for purpose s of se c tion 3553(a )(1). R e lia

nc e on suc h

inform ation, e ve n whe n unfavora ble to the de fe nda

nt, doe s not run a foul of due proc e ss m e re ly be c a use of the p a ssa g e of tim e . AFFIR M ED.

4