United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________ 

No. 23-2700

___________________________ 

United States of America

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Devaris Carpenter

 Defendant - Appellant

____________ 

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

____________ 

Submitted: April 12, 2024

Filed: August 12, 2024

[Unpublished]

____________ 

Before GRUENDER, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. 

____________ 

PER CURIAM.

Devaris Carpenter pleaded guilty to one count of possessing a firearm after 

having been convicted of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 

924(a)(2), and faced an advisory Guidelines range of 57 to 71 months. The district 

court1 varied upward and sentenced Carpenter to 84 months of incarceration and 

1

The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, United States District Judge for the 

Eastern District of Missouri.
-2- 

three years of supervised release. Carpenter appeals, arguing that the district court 

impermissibly relied on government testimony regarding uncharged conduct and

that his sentence was substantively unreasonable. We affirm.

At sentencing, the government called as a witness Detective David Rudolph, 

an undercover agent who began communicating with Carpenter via Facebook prior 

to his arrest. Rudolph explained that Carpenter, in a series of messages, wrote that 

someone had robbed and shot at him, that he needed Rudolph to find him a gun, and 

that he had “to take care of something ASAP.” Based on these messages, Rudolph 

believed Carpenter was planning to harm someone. Rudolph explained that he then

put Carpenter in touch with an undercover federal agent under the pretext that the 

agent would sell Carpenter a firearm. Carpenter and the federal agent met to 

complete the sale, and after Carpenter took possession of the firearm, he was 

arrested. The government also asked Rudolph about his investigation into a 2019 

murder. Rudolph explained that he had identified Carpenter as a suspect in the 

murder based on his review of the evidence and a re-interview of a witness to the 

murder. Carpenter did not object to Rudolph’s testimony about this investigation. 

United States v. Williams, 30 F.4th 796, 799 (8th Cir. 2022) (explaining that when 

a defendant does not object at sentencing, we review for plain error). 

On appeal, Carpenter contends that in deciding to vary upward the district 

court erred by relying on Rudolph’s testimony regarding the 2019 murder. This was 

error, according to Carpenter, because the murder was uncharged conduct and the 

government’s evidence was hearsay that lacked sufficient indicia of reliability. See

United States Sentencing Guidelines § 6A1.3(a) (2020) (“[T]he 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.”). However, the district court did not rely on this 

testimony in deciding to vary upward. In arriving at its sentence, the court weighed

the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and explained that “Carpenter sought to purchase a 

weapon in order to retaliate against someone for robbing him and pointing a gun at 

him, if not actually shooting at him.” Distinguishing this case from “a routine traffic 
-3- 

stop [where] a weapon’s found underneath the seat of a car,” the district court found

that Carpenter’s attempted firearm purchase “was intended to be used . . . to harm 

another person,” and his Facebook message communicating as much was not 

“puffery.” The district court concluded by clarifying that the 84-month sentence 

“imposed was to reflect the seriousness of the offense,” because this was not a 

“standard felon in possession” case. See § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(A). Because the 

uncharged conduct did not factor into the district court’s decision to vary upward, 

Carpenter’s argument that the district court erred is unavailing.

Carpenter also argues that his 84-month sentence is substantively 

unreasonable because, in his view, it was based on Randolph’s unreliable testimony 

regarding the 2019 murder investigation. We review substantive reasonableness for 

an abuse of discretion, United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) 

(en banc), but find none here because, as we have explained, the district court’s 

sentence was not based on this testimony. 

We affirm.

______________________________