UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-4716

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SHANIQUAWA LATIFAH HILL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:21-cr-00064-HEH-1)

Submitted: January 3, 2023 Decided: March 29, 2023

Before WYNN, THACKER AND RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Mary E. Maguire, Assistant 

Federal Public Defender, Caroline S. Platt, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC 

DEFENDER, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Jessica D. Aber, United States 

Attorney, Angela Mastandrea-Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4716 Doc: 35 Filed: 03/29/2023 Pg: 1 of 4
2

PER CURIAM:

Shaniquawa Hill (“Appellant”) pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a 

firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and was sentenced to 75 

months imprisonment. Appellant challenges the district court’s imposition of a two-level 

enhancement for an offense involving three to seven firearms pursuant to the United States 

Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.”) § 2K2.1(b)(1)(A). Specifically, Appellant challenges 

(1) the admissibility and reliability of Appellant’s uncorroborated post-Miranda statements

pertaining to three additional firearms (other than the firearm of conviction); and (2) the 

Government’s failure to recover and/or examine any of the four separate and additional 

firearms the district court attributed to Appellant (other than the firearm of conviction). 

As an initial matter, “[f]ederal courts historically have exercised . . . broad 

discretion to consider all relevant information at an initial sentencing hearing, consistent 

with their responsibility to sentence the whole person before them.” Concepcion v. United 

States, 142 S. Ct. 2389, 2398 (2022). Turning first to Appellant’s challenge to her own 

prior statements, “[i]t is well established that, at sentencing, the 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.’” United States v. Pineda, 770 F.3d 313, 318 (4th Cir. 2014) 

(U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3(a)); see also Fed. R. Evid. 1101(d)(3) (stating that the rules of evidence 

are inapplicable to sentencing proceedings). And, even where the rules of evidence do

apply, statements against interest -- supported by corroborating circumstances clearly 

indicating the statements’ trustworthiness -- serve as an exception to the rule against 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4716 Doc: 35 Filed: 03/29/2023 Pg: 2 of 4
3

hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 804(3)(A)–(B). Therefore, we need not assess the admissibility of 

Appellant’s prior statements. Rather, we review whether the district court abused its 

discretion in determining that the statement was sufficiently reliable to be considered at 

sentencing. See United States v. Gilliam, 987 F.2d 1009, 1014 (4th Cir. 1993). 

The Government bears the burden of proving the applicability of a sentencing 

enhancement by a preponderance of the evidence. See United States v. Bullard, 301 F. 

App’x 224, 226 (4th Cir. 2008) (stating that “[a]t sentencing, the Government bears the 

burden of proving the facts necessary to show that enhancements are warranted by a 

preponderance of the evidence”). Here, Appellant provided a post-Miranda statement to 

law enforcement where she detailed the (1) number of firearms she discharged; (2) type of 

firearms; (3) location where she discharged the firearms; and (4) manner in which the 

firearms were discharged. J.A. 88–89. Based upon the level of detail and context 

surrounding Appellant’s statement, the district court did not abuse its discretion in 

determining that Appellant’s post-Miranda statement bore an indicium of reliability. See 

United States v. Blue, 536 F. App’x 353, 355 (4th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (holding that the 

district court did not err in crediting defendant’s post-arrest statement to support drug 

quantities for purposes of sentencing). Moreover, Appellant’s statement was corroborated 

by text messages wherein she sought to acquire firearms, photographs of Appellant with 

objects identified by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives as actual 

firearms, and Appellant’s possession of a Taurus PT111 G2A 9mm firearm on the date of 

her arrest. See United States v. Cummings, 337 F. App’x 313, 315 (4th Cir. 2006) (per 

curiam) (holding that the district court did not err in utilizing post-arrest statements for 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4716 Doc: 35 Filed: 03/29/2023 Pg: 3 of 4
4

purposes of determining defendant’s appropriate offense level where those statements have 

established reliability). 

Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a two-level 

enhancement per U.S.S.G. § 2k2.1(b)(1)(A) for an offense involving three to seven 

firearms. We need not reach the merits of Appellant’s challenge to the four remaining 

firearms because attributing the three firearms detailed in Appellant’s post-Miranda 

statement to Appellant, plus the firearm of conviction,* is sufficient to warrant a two-level 

enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1). 

For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s imposition of a two-level enhancement 

pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1) is

AFFIRMED.

* As the Taurus PT111 G2A firearm is a 9mm, it is conceivable that this is the “9” 

Appellant admitted to discharging at her grandfather’s home the day prior to her arrest. 

However, this does not impact the two-level enhancement as, even assuming duplication 

on this firearm, there remain three firearms attributable to Appellant. 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4716 Doc: 35 Filed: 03/29/2023 Pg: 4 of 4