UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

AHMAD AUSTIN,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 22-3040

(2:21-CR-20012-HLT-TJJ-1)

(D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before TYMKOVICH, SEYMOUR, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.

Ahmad Austin pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation 

of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). At sentencing, he received a four-level enhancement under 

U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for using or possessing a firearm in connection with an 

aggravated assault. On appeal, Mr. Austin contends that the district court clearly erred in 

applying § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) because there is no reliable evidence to support the 

enhancement. We conclude there was sufficient evidence for the sentencing court to 

*

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of 

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the 

citation of orders and judgments. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value 

consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

March 2, 2023

Christopher M. Wolpert

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 22-3040 Document: 010110820406 Date Filed: 03/02/2023 Page: 1
2

find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the enhancement applied in Mr. Austin’s 

case and we therefore affirm. 

Background

In the early morning of September 8, 2020, Mr. Austin and his partner of twentyfour years, Jasmine Moten, were arguing loudly in their home in Lawrence, Kansas. 

Three of their children were asleep in the home. At some time around 6:00 a.m., Ms. 

Moten came into the room of her 15-year-old son (“A.A.”), gave him her phone, and told 

him to call 911 because Mr. Austin had hit her with a gun. A.A. heard the front door shut

and saw his parents leaving in his father’s Dodge Charger through the window. 

A.A. called 911 as instructed. Thereafter, Officer J. Risner and another officer 

were dispatched to the home where they interviewed A.A. Officer Risner indicated in his 

incident report that A.A. confirmed the basic facts described above. Officer Meghan 

Bardwell also visited the home and interviewed A.A. and his 12-year-old brother 

(“N.A.”). During this conversation, which was captured on Officer Bardwell’s lapel 

camera, A.A. again confirmed the basic facts of the incident, including that his mother 

said Mr. Austin had a gun. He stated, “I think she said she got hit with it.” Aplt. Supp. 

App., vol. II at 7:01–7:03 (Officer Bardwell’s Body Camera Footage). When Officer 

Bardwell asked if Mr. Austin had done this before, A.A. responded that he had not hit her 

with a gun before. Officer Bardwell then recounted the events as she understood them: 

“So this morning she steps in and says, ‘Call the police your dad hit me with a gun.’” Id.

at 7:38–7:43. A.A. affirmatively nodded. After additional questioning, Officer Bardwell 

again recounted the events: “At about five or six you hear them yelling . . . and then mom 

Appellate Case: 22-3040 Document: 010110820406 Date Filed: 03/02/2023 Page: 2
3

pushes the door open and says, ‘Hey call the cops your dad hit me with a gun.’ And then 

she just walks out of your room.” Id. at 9:00–9:13. A.A. again gave multiple affirmative 

nods, and responded, “Yeah.” Id. at 9:13. A.A. told Officer Bardwell that he was 

“confused, kind of scared” and that his mother appeared scared and did not want to leave 

with his father. Id. at 7:10–7:18, 7:58–8:03. A.A. also described the firearm his father 

had access to as a silver Smith & Wesson handgun with black grips. 

Officer Bardwell asked N.A. about the argument as well. N.A. indicated that 

while his parents’ arguments were not typically violent, he felt like this particular 

argument was or could have been “super violent.” Id. at 2:11–2:20. N.A. told Officer 

Bardwell that Ms. Moten went into A.A.’s room to call 911 and spoke to A.A. before 

leaving. 

That same morning, police were notified that four shots were fired from a silver 

Dodge Charger at a nearby apartment complex. Officers located the vehicle, and a traffic 

stop revealed the occupants to be Mr. Austin and Ms. Moten. Officers observed a holster 

on Mr. Austin’s waistband and located two spent shell casings in the vehicle. Officers 

subsequently interviewed Ms. Moten. She admitted that Mr. Austin came home 

intoxicated early that morning and that there was some pushing. However, she denied 

that Mr. Austin hit her with a firearm. She also denied the existence of the firearm and 

denied discarding it from the vehicle and repeatedly stated that she did not want to be 

involved. Officers observed some bruising or marks on her cheeks and took photographs 

which were later admitted into evidence. 

Appellate Case: 22-3040 Document: 010110820406 Date Filed: 03/02/2023 Page: 3
4

Officers returned to the apartment complex where the shots had been fired and 

found a silver Smith & Wesson handgun with black grips. Testing ultimately confirmed 

that Mr. Austin’s DNA was on the gun. In addition, a magazine was found in Mr. 

Austin’s home. Shell casings matching those recovered from the Dodge Charger were 

also found in his bedroom. 

Because Mr. Austin was a convicted felon, it was unlawful for him to possess a 

firearm. He pled guilty to being a felon in possession in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 922(g)(1).1

 

The Sentencing Hearing

In February of 2022, the district court held a sentencing hearing during which Mr. 

Austin objected to the four-level enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possessing a 

firearm in connection with another felony—to wit, aggravated assault. Officer Bardwell 

testified at the hearing and her police report and body camera footage were admitted into 

evidence. Although Officer Risner did not testify, his police report was admitted into 

evidence. Neither Mr. Austin, Ms. Moten, nor A.A. testified. However, Mr. Austin did 

make a statement to the court in which he denied hitting Ms. Moten with the gun but 

admitted to ownership, possession, discharge, and disposal of the weapon. 

In overruling Mr. Austin’s objection to the enhancement, the district court 

provided a lengthy and detailed explanation, including the following statements:

A.A. reported that he was in fear for his safety and the safety of his mother 

due to his mother’s statements before she left. . . . This interaction is recorded 

1 Mr. Austin initially pled guilty pursuant to a binding plea agreement, but the 

district court later rejected the plea agreement at the joint request of the parties.

Appellate Case: 22-3040 Document: 010110820406 Date Filed: 03/02/2023 Page: 4
5

in Exhibit 3 which the court reviewed. The court observed A.A.’s demeanor

throughout that interview and contact with Officer-now-Detective 

[Bardwell].

. . . .

The court credits the testimony of Officer [Bardwell] and Agent 

Padilla and their repeated contemporaneous and consistent statements of 

A.A. A.A. consistently maintained that he heard his parents fighting and that 

his mother asked him to call 911 after Mr. Austin hit her with a firearm. He 

described the firearm, admitted that he was scared and concerned, and had 

no reason or motivation to lie. 

The court finds A.A.’s statements and the officer’s corresponding 

testimony and reports credible. A.A.’s statement is also corroborated to 

some extent by the pictures and the marks on Ms. Moten’s cheek. The court 

recognizes that the [body camera footage shows A.A. stating] that, quote, “I 

think she said she got hit with it,” but Detective [Bardwell] repeated the same 

question several times and each time he confirmed that Ms. Moten had said 

she had been hit with a firearm. This is also consistent with the other reports 

by the initially responding officers in this case. 

The court does not credit Ms. Moten’s statements to the officers about 

this issue during her interview. She was willing to admit conduct that would 

not place Mr. Austin in trouble but denied all information that could get him 

in trouble. She denied the firearm even though police subsequently located 

it with his DNA at the apartment complex they were seen exiting. Mr. Austin 

was also arrested with an empty gun holster. She admitted some pushing but 

denied that Mr. Austin hit her with the firearm. She would not answer 

questions about the travel route and repeatedly stated that she did not want 

to get involved. 

Ms. Moten and Mr. Austin have four children together and have been 

in a relationship for 24 years. She had a motivation to protect him while 

talking with the officers. Mr. Austin identifies no motive or explanation as 

to why she would lie when talking to her son or why A.A. would lie to police. 

The court also notes the reports about witness intimidation and notes that Ms. 

Moten was involved . . . . This further undercuts her credibility . . . . 

For all these reasons, the court finds that the government has 

established by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Austin used or 

possessed the firearm in connection with the felony offense of aggravated 

assault against Ms. Moten. 

Appellate Case: 22-3040 Document: 010110820406 Date Filed: 03/02/2023 Page: 5
6

Rec., vol. III at 78–81. 

Based on this ruling, the district court calculated the guideline range to be 21 to 27

months and ultimately sentenced Mr. Austin to twenty-four months in prison.

Standard of Review

“We review the district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines for abuse 

of discretion. In applying that standard, we review questions of law de novo and factual 

findings for clear error.” United States v. Stein, 985 F.3d 1254, 1266 (10th Cir. 2021) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “In particular, we review the application 

of § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) in a given case for clear error.” United States v. Leib, 57 F.4th 1122, 

1125–26 (10th Cir. 2023).2 To find clear error, “we must be convinced that the 

sentencing court’s finding is simply not plausible or permissible in light of the entire 

record on appeal, remembering that we are not free to substitute our judgment for that of 

the district judge.” United States v. Garcia, 635 F.3d 472, 478 (10th Cir. 2011) (internal 

quotation marks omitted).

2 Mr. Austin argues that we should review the application of § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) 

de novo because the reliability of a hearsay statement is a mixed issue of law and fact. 

We decline to deviate from the clear error standard in this case, which we recently 

reaffirmed as the correct standard. Leib, 57 F.4th at 1125–26.

The government also argues that Mr. Austin raises numerous new arguments on 

appeal that are waived because he has not argued for plain error review. But Mr. 

Austin’s appellate arguments are permissible expansions of arguments made in district 

court and are not waived.

Appellate Case: 22-3040 Document: 010110820406 Date Filed: 03/02/2023 Page: 6
7

Discussion

Mr. Austin argues the district court impermissibly applied § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) based 

on unreliable double hearsay. “While the due process clause protects a defendant’s right 

not to be sentenced on the basis of materially incorrect information, hearsay statements 

may be considered at sentencing if they bear ‘some minimal indicia of reliability.’” 

United States v. Cook, 550 F.3d 1292, 1296 (10th Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v. 

Browning, 61 F.3d 752, 755 (10th Cir. 1995)); see also U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3(a) (stating that 

sentencing courts may consider evidence inadmissible at trial “provided that the 

information has sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy”).

3

District courts may even rely on double hearsay if the statements contain minimal indicia 

of reliability. United States v. Basnett, 735 F.3d 1255, 1261 (10th Cir. 2013). This 

reliability requirement is a “low hurdle.” Cook, 550 F.3d at 1296.

“[P]olice reports are neither ‘inherently reliable [nor] . . . inherently unreliable.’” 

United States v. Ruby, 706 F.3d 1221, 1230 (10th Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v. 

Lloyd, 566 F.3d 341, 346 (3d Cir. 2009)). “Corroborating evidence is often key to 

determining whether a statement is sufficiently reliable.” Id. at 1229. For example, in 

Leib, 57 F.4th at 1129, we upheld the application of § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) based on a hearsay 

statement that was corroborated by “the totality of the circumstances.” There, the district 

court found that the defendant had committed the New Mexico felony of willfully 

3 Mr. Austin contends that our precedent requiring only “some minimal indicia of 

reliability” violates the text of § 6A1.3(a), which requires “sufficient indicia of 

reliability.” We are not persuaded that our precedent is inconsistent with § 6A1.3(a).

Appellate Case: 22-3040 Document: 010110820406 Date Filed: 03/02/2023 Page: 7
8

shooting at a dwelling. Id. at 1126. This finding was based primarily on a statement 

made by the defendant’s mother, indicating that she had heard the defendant fire multiple 

shots into the floor of his bedroom. Id. at 1128. The totality of the circumstances—

including the facts that the defendant was alone in his room, did not make any homicidal 

or suicidal statements, was not injured, and fired multiple shots—signaled that the 

defendant’s conduct was not accidental and that he had not intended to shoot himself or 

another person. Id. at 1127–28. We also noted that there was no reason to believe that 

the defendant’s mother had a motive to lie about her son’s conduct. Id. at 1129. 

Furthermore, the mother’s statement, although unsworn, was observed by police officers 

and captured in body camera footage. Id.

In contrast, we held in United States v. Fennell, 65 F.3d 812, 813–14 (10th Cir. 

1995), that the sentencing court erred in applying § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B)4 based on unreliable 

hearsay. There, the government argued that the defendant unlawfully possessed a firearm 

in connection with a felony assault because he allegedly fired a machine gun at his 

girlfriend. Id. at 813. The only evidence of that fact, however, was the unsworn 

statement of the girlfriend taken over the telephone by the probation officer preparing the 

presentence report. Id. We held that, although “[t]he Sentencing Guidelines do not set a 

high threshold of reliability, . . . more is required than . . . [u]nsworn out-of-court 

statements made by an unobserved witness and unsupported by other evidence.” Id. at 

813–14.

4 Section 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) was previously numbered as § 2K2.1(b)(5).

Appellate Case: 22-3040 Document: 010110820406 Date Filed: 03/02/2023 Page: 8
9

Mr. Austin argues that this case is analogous to Fennell. We disagree. Here, 

“other evidence” with sufficient reliability was available to and considered by the district 

court. For example, the court relied on Officer Bardwell’s testimony and multiple, 

consistent police reports which it deemed credible. It also considered exhibits admitted at 

the sentencing hearing, including the photographs of Ms. Moten depicting markings on 

her face and chest and the body camera footage from Officer Bardwell’s interview with

A.A. Furthermore, the district court made specific findings about Ms. Moten’s 

motivation to protect Mr. Austin and the lack of credibility of her denials of certain facts 

and events that Mr. Austin admitted to during the sentencing hearing. In particular, Mr. 

Austin admitted to ownership, possession, discharge, and disposal of the weapon. Ms. 

Moten, however, denied the existence of the firearm and refused to discuss details of the 

relevant events, repeatedly stating she did not want to be further involved.

Although an additional layer of hearsay is involved in Mr. Austin’s case, it is more 

similar to Leib. Like the defendant’s mother in Leib, A.A. did not actually witness the

enhancement offense being committed. However, law enforcement observed and 

captured footage of A.A.’s unsworn statement, which the district court reviewed and 

admitted into evidence without objection. Moreover, like in Leib, the court found that the 

declarants did not have a motivation to lie. Here too, the enhancement is supported by 

the totality of the circumstances. Both A.A. and N.A. told law enforcement that they 

were awakened by their parents’ argument. A.A. conveyed that both he and his mother 

were scared. N.A. told Officer Bardwell that he was concerned that this argument, unlike 

others the couple had, was or would get “super violent.” He also said that Ms. Moten 

Appellate Case: 22-3040 Document: 010110820406 Date Filed: 03/02/2023 Page: 9
10

went into A.A.’s room to call 911 and spoke to A.A. before she left. A.A.’s reliability is 

further bolstered by the fact that he correctly described the gun that was later found with 

Mr. Austin’s DNA. 

Mr. Austin argues that the hearsay statement here is contradicted, rather than 

corroborated, by other evidence. For example, only Mr. Austin’s DNA was found on the 

weapon. In addition, none of the children saw or heard Mr. Austin hit Ms. Moten with a 

firearm while both Mr. Austin and Ms. Moten denied it. Mr. Austin also notes that A.A. 

told law enforcement that his mother did not appear to be injured and argues that the 

marks photographed on Ms. Moten are not consistent with being hit with a gun by a 

person of Mr. Austin’s size and stature. Relatedly, Ms. Moten told law enforcement that 

“the marks were from a minor physical altercation” a few days prior. Rec., vol. I at 44. 

A district court could plausibly find, on these facts and others cited by Mr. Austin, 

that Mr. Austin did not hit Ms. Moten with a firearm. But the facts cited by Mr. Austin 

do not make the district court’s finding that he did hit Ms. Moten implausible. As the 

government points out, the firearm was not tested for the DNA of a person other than Mr. 

Austin, including Ms. Moten. Furthermore, the children were sleeping at the time of the 

incident and both Mr. Austin and Ms. Moten had incentive to deny that he hit her with 

the gun. Concerning the photographs of the marks on Ms. Moten, we are not tasked with 

substituting our judgment for that of the district court to determine whether the

photographs corroborate Ms. Moten’s statement to A.A. about being struck. However, 

we conclude it was not implausible for the district court to find that they were 

corroborative. Concerning Ms. Moten’s alternative explanation for the marks, we have 

Appellate Case: 22-3040 Document: 010110820406 Date Filed: 03/02/2023 Page: 10
11

no reason to question the district court’s finding that Ms. Moten was not a credible 

source. Therefore, the probative value of the contradictory facts cited by Mr. Austin is 

low.

Mr. Austin also challenges the district court’s reasoning, in part because the court

stated that A.A. said he feared for his and his mother’s safety. This statement appears to 

be based on Officer Bardwell’s investigative report. See Rec., vol. I at 42. As Mr. 

Austin notes, however, Officer Bardwell’s body camera footage shows that A.A. did not 

specifically state that he feared for his or his mother’s safety. Rather, he stated that his 

mother was scared and that he was “confused, kind of scared.” To the extent the report 

does not accurately reflect exactly what A.A. said, we conclude that any error was 

harmless. A.A. told Officer Bardwell that his mother did not want to leave the home 

when she left with Mr. Austin. The district court also reviewed the footage and observed 

A.A.’s demeanor. The court could fairly conclude based on all the statements A.A. made 

and his demeanor that he feared for his and his mother’s safety. Furthermore, the court’s 

remark about A.A.’s fear is only one statement in a very long and detailed explanation

and does not appear to have weighed heavily in the decision to deny Mr. Austin’s 

objection.

Finally, Mr. Austin argues that the district court erroneously focused on the 

credibility of A.A.’s statements and corresponding testimony and reports from law 

enforcement instead of the reliability of Ms. Moten’s statement to A.A. We disagree. 

First, the district court needed to find that A.A. and the involved law enforcement officers 

were credible to apply the enhancement. Second, the reliability of Ms. Moten’s statement 

Appellate Case: 22-3040 Document: 010110820406 Date Filed: 03/02/2023 Page: 11
12

to A.A. was sufficiently established below. Although the district court stated that the 

photographs of the marks on Ms. Moten corroborated A.A.’s statement, they also 

corroborated Ms. Moten’s statement to A.A. The court considered Ms. Moten’s 

credibility and specifically found that she was not credible when she denied being struck 

by the firearm. 

Furthermore, the district court noted that Mr. Austin offered no explanation for

why Ms. Moten would lie to her son. Mr. Austin argues that, in doing so, the court 

impermissibly shifted the burden of proof to him. However, the district court did not err 

in noting that Mr. Austin had not presented an alternative explanation. To the contrary, 

the district court plainly determined the government established that the enhancement 

applied by a preponderance of the evidence. This finding was both plausible and 

permissible in light of the entire record on appeal.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded that the district court committed

clear error in applying the sentencing enhancement. Accordingly, we affirm. Appellant’s 

motion to expedite is denied. 

Entered for the Court

Stephanie K. Seymour

Circuit Judge

Appellate Case: 22-3040 Document: 010110820406 Date Filed: 03/02/2023 Page: 12