2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
6-29-2007 

# U SA v . Leek ins P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-1658

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . L e e kin s " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 826. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/826H on. A nne E. T hom ps on, U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctJ udge for * t he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. P RE CE DE NT I AL U N I TED STA TES C O U RT O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT
N o. 05- 1658

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. W I LLI A M TH O M A S LEE K I N S, A ppel l ant

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D
. C
. N o. 03- cr - 00353) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Sy l vi a H
. R ambo

Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

O ct ober24, 2005 B efore: S L O V ITE R , F ISH E R , C i rcui tJudg es, and TH O M PSO N , D i s t r i ctJ udge * ( Fi l ed J une 29, 2007)

D e n n is E . B o y le C amp H i l l , PA 17011W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o hearthi s appea l pur s uantt o 28 1 U
. S. C § 1291 and 18 U
. S. C
. § 3742( a)
. T hi s cour tr evi ew s “fa ctual fi ndi ngs r el evantt o t he G ui del i nes forcl ear erro r” a nd exer ci s es “pl enaryr evi ew overa di s t r i ctcour t ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of the G u idelines
. ” U n it ed S tat es v . G ri er, 47 5 F
. 3 d 5 5 6 , 5 7 0 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 7 ) (en b an c). 2 A t t or neyforA ppel l ant T hom as A
. M ar i no U ni t ed St at es A t t orney T h eo d o re B
. S m ith , III E r i c Pfi s t er er A s s i s t a n tU n i t e d S t a t e s A t t o r n e ys H arr i s bur g, PA 17108 A t t or ney s forA ppel l ee

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT
SL O V I T E R , C i r cui tJ udge. A ppel l antW i l l i am T hom as L eeki ns appea l s fr om the j udgm entof the D i s t r i ctC our ts ent enci ng hi m t o i m pr i s onm ent fora t erm of 262 m ont hs
. Fi r s t , L eeki ns as s ert s thathi s s ent ence w a s i mpos e d i n v i ol a t i on of U ni t e d St a t e s v. Booke r , 54 3 U. S. 2 2 0 (2 0 0 5 ), an d th a t itd e n ied h im h is S ix th A m e n d m e n t rig h t to a j ur yt r i al beca us e i tw as bas ed upon fa ct s found bya j udge at hi s s ent enci ng hear i ng thathe had notadmi t t ed i n hi s pl ea c o llo q u y . S e c o n d , L e e k in s a rg u e s th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in admi t t i ng a pol i ce r epor ti nt o evi dence atthe s ent enci ng hear i ng b e c a u s e it b o re n o “ in d ic ia o f re lia b ility.” U .S .S .G . § 6 A 1 .3
. W e wi l l a f

f i r m. 1 I. L e e k in s w a s c h a rg e d in a tw o -c o u n t in d ictm e n t w ith3 pos s es s i on of a f

i r earm bya convi ct ed fe l on i n vi ol at i on of 18 U
. S
. C
. § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 1 ) ( C o u n tI ) , a n d p o s s e s s i o n o f a f i r e a r m b y a per s on s ubj ectt o a domest i c abus e r es t r ai ni ng or deri n vi ol at i on of 18 U
. S. C
. § 922( g) ( 8) ( C ountI I )
. H e ent er ed i nt o a w r i t t en negot i at ed pl ea a gr eementw i t h t he G overnm enti n w hi ch he agr eed t o pl ead gui l t yt o C ountI and t o admi tpr i orconvi ct i ons o f v io len t f e lo n ies (in h is c a se , b u rg lar ies ) w h ich m a d e h im s ubj ectt o t he arm ed ca r eercr i m i nal s ent enci ng enhanc ement u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 (e ). T h e G o v e rn m e n t ag re e d to r ecomm end i m pos i t i on of the mandat orym i ni m um s ent ence of fiftee n y ea rs un d er 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 9 2 2 (g)(1 ). Pur s uantt o t hatagr eement , L eeki ns pl ed gui l t yand the G overnm entdr opped C ountI I of the i ndi ctm entand rec o m m en d ed im p o sit ion o f o n lythe f ift ee n -y ea r m an d atory m i nim um sent ence o n C ou nt I of the i nd i ct m ent. N on et heles s, the D istri ct C o u rtd id n o t fo ll o w the G o v ern m en t’ s re c o m m e n d a tio n . A f

ter a h e a rin g , the C o u rt, fo llo w in g its cons i der at i on of the t es t i m onypr es ent ed atthe hea r i ng and the pol i ce r epor ti nt r oduced a tthe s ent enci ng hear i ng, adopt ed the p rese n tenc e re p o rt(“P S R ”). T he P S R con t ai ned the fo l l ow i ng un con t est ed fa ct s: O n N o v e m b e r 1 5 , 2 0 0 3 , o f f ic e rs re s p o n d e d to
. . . a 9 -1 -1 h a n g -u p c a ll .
. . . O f f ice r S w a n k w a s th e f

irst to arr i ve att he r es i dence
. H e appr oache d t he s i de doorof t he r es i dence and obs erved thatther e w as a dea d- bol tl ock l y i ng on t he ki t chen f

l oorand the doorfr ame w as s pl i nt er ed. H e ca ut i ous l yent er ed the r es i dence and obs erved the def

endantand an i nfanti n a w al keri n t he di ni ng r oom ar ea. M r . L eeki ns t ol d O ffi cerSw ank that he and hi s w i fe w er e j us thavi ng an ar gum ent , but e v e ry th in g w a s a lrig h t. A tt hi s t i m e, O ffi cerB l os s arr i ved atthe r es i dence an d en co u n tered N an cyL ee k ins, th e d ef en d an t’ s es t r anged w i fe, i n fr ontof the r es i dence
. She t ol d t he offi cert hatM r . L eeki ns had thr eat ened t o ki l l herw i t h a gu n an d thatshe had an acti ve P rot ect i on F rom A bu se4 o rd e r a g a in st h im . S h e a lso n o ted th a t h e r te n -m o n th -o ld grandd aug hterw as st i l l i n the r esi den ce. O ffi cer B l oss pr ocee ded i nt o t he r es i dence and advi s ed O ffi cerSw ank th a t M r. L e e k in s w a s a rm e d . T h e d e f e n d a n t, w h o h a d h is h an d s in h is po ck ets, w as in stru cted to sh o w the o ff icers his han ds.

. . . Shor t l yt her eaf

t er , the def

endants urr ender ed t o t he offi cer s . H e had a pai rof ey egl as s es i n one hand a nd a t ow el hel d t o hi s thr oat
. M r . L eeki ns w as t aken t o t he hos pi t al , w her e doct or s r epor t ed thata bul l etw as l odged i n hi s head, buthad notpenetr at ed hi s br ai n. D u ri n g a se arc h o f th e re side n ce , o ff icers re c o v e re d a lo a d e d .3 8 c a lib e r C h a rte r A rm s re v o lv e r in t he fr ontbedr oom , w her e a pool of bl ood w as obs erved on t he bed. T heyal s o found one s pents hel l cas i ng i n t he bedr oom . O ffi cer s al s o l earned thatM r . L eeki ns w as on w or k r el eas e atthe t i m e of the i ns t antoffe ns e and ha d pos s es s i on of a 1999 Chevr ol etM al i bu. Pol i ce l ocat ed t he vehi cl e parked one- hal f bl ock aw ayfr om the reside n ce an d rec o v ere d a b lack n y lon h o lst er. PSR at¶¶ 5- 8. Le e k i n s c o n t e s t e d th e f o l l o wi n g p o r t i o n o f

th e P S R: [A ft erbei ng as ked t o s how hi s hands ] , M r . L eeki ns turn ed an d w alke d aw ayfro m the o ff icers. O ff

icers c o n tin u e d to c o m m a n d M r. L e e k in s to sto p a n d sh o w h is hands
. M r . L eeki ns w al ked pas tthe i nfantand hea ded t ow ar d t he s t ai r s . A s the def endantr eac hed the s t ai r s , he turn ed an d fired o n e sh o t i n the o ff icers’ an d inf

an t’ s di r ect i on. O ffi cer s r eturned fi r e and M r . L eeki ns fl ed up t he s t ai r s . O ffi cerSw ank r emoved t he i nfantfr om the w al kerand t ook herout s i de. PSR at¶ 6. T he PSR concl uded thatL eeki ns had comm i t t edM s . L eeki ns gave t es t i m ony fr om her s eat i n t he audi ence . 2 T her e w as no r eques tby eitherpart ythats he be s w orn, and s he w as n’ t
. W e di s cour age thatpr act i ce but n eit h er par t yr ai s es t hat i ssue. Iti s app arent t hat t he D i stri ctC ou rtaccep t ed M s. L eekins’ versi on of the con t est ed fa ct s. 5 a tte m p te d m u rd e r b e c a u s e h e h a d f ir e d a g u n a t p o lic e o f

f ic e rs . L eeki ns r el at ed a mat er i al l ydi ffe r entver s i on of the fa ct s t o t he p r o b a t i o n o f

f i c e r . He ma i n t a i n s th a th e we n tt o h i s wi f e ’ s h o me w ith the in tention o f k il li n g h im self a n d k icke d in the d o o r, announci ng, “Thi s i s m yhous e, and thi s i s w her e I w antt o di e. ” P S R at¶ 11
. H e con t end s that w hen the p oli ce enter ed M s. L e e k in s’s re sid e n c e a n d th e yto ld h im to d ro p h is g u n , h e p u t h is hands i n t he ai rbeca us e he ha d no gun t o dr op. H e s t at es that t he pol i ce r es ponded bys hoot i ng hi m i n t he l efthand, and that he then r an ups t ai r s , r etr i eved hi s w i fe’ s gun fr om herdr es s er dr aw er , and s hothi m s el f i n t he hea d. A tt he s ent enci ng hear i ng, L eeki ns ’ couns el r epea t ed L eeki ns ’ deni al t hathe had e verfi r ed on pol i ce of fi cer s and couns el not ed thatatt he s t at e pr el i m i naryhear i ng ther e w as t es t i m onyt o t he ef

fec tt hatpol i ce i nves t i gat or s had found no b u ll ets i n an yp iece o f f u rnitu re tha t w as b eh ind the o ff icers wh e n Le e k i n s h a d a l l e g e d l ys h o ta tth e m. L eeki ns ’ es t r anged w i fe a l s o pr es ent ed t es t i m onyatthe s ent enci ng hear i ng and s t at ed thats he w as s i t t i ng i n t he di ni ng 2 r oom of herhom e w i t h hert en- m onth- ol d gr anddaught erw hen s h e s a w L e e k in s w a lk b ya n d lo o k in to h e r d in in g ro o m w in d o w . She cal l ed 911 on a w al l

- m ount ed phone, atw hi ch poi ntL eeki ns “ki cked the doori n and r i pped the phone outof the w al l
. ” A pp. at 49
. H e p u sh ed h er o n to the flo o r ne x t t o h er g ran d d au g h ter, hel d a gun ( w hi ch M s . L eeki ns had neve rs een be for e) t o her h e a d , an d y e lled a c c u sa tio n s th a t sh e h a d tu rn e d h is f a m ily agai ns thi m and “w as goi ng t o l ethi m s i ti n j ai l and r ot
. ” A pp. at49. A ccor di ng t o M s . L eeki ns , L eeki ns then demanded that s he aga i n cal l 911 and t el l them not t o s end any one. B acki ngI n r es pons e t o hi s w i fe’ s t es t i m ony , he al s o as s ert ed thathe 3 h a d u n p lu g g e d ra th e r th a n “ rip p e d ” th e p h o n e f ro m th e w a ll. T h e D istri ct C o u rt d en ied L ee k ins’ req u est fo r a d o w n w ard 4 ad justm en t fo r ac ce p tanc e o f re sp o n sibil ityb ec au se th e C o u rt concl uded thatL eeki ns had nottruthful l y ad m i t t ed conduc t co n sti tuti n g the o ff

en se o f c o n v ict ion
. W e se e n o erro r.

6 a w a y , M s . L e e k in s u s e d th e p h o n e in th e liv in g ro o m to c a ll 9 1 1
. T he di s pat cheri nform ed herthata pol i ce of fi cerw as al r eadyen r out e. W hen the pol i ce a r r i ved, M s . L eeki ns w al ked out s i de and t ol d an off

i cer( O ffi cerB l os s ) thatherhus band w as i ns i de the hous e and ha d a gun. Fol l ow i ng M s . L eeki ns ’ t es t i m ony , L eeki ns t es t i fi ed underoath, agai n deny i ng havi ng s hotatthe off i cer s . L eeki ns admi t t ed on cr os s - exami nat i on thatthe hol s t erfound i n hi s car w as t he hol s t erfort he r evol verhe cl ai m ed t o have obt ai ned u p s t a i r s i n t h e h o u s e . D u r i n g a n d s i n c e h i s p l e a c o l l o q u y, 3 L eeki ns has r epea t edl ydeni ed thathe fi r ed a gun a tpol i ce off i cers . I n hi s w r i t t en comm ent s t o t he PSR and hi s ar gum entat t he s ent enci ng hear i ng, L eeki ns obj ect ed t o: ( 1) the us e of the a ttem p ted m u rd e r g u id e lin e to d e ter m in e h is b a se o f f e n se lev e l, ( 2) al l upw ar d adj us t m ent s bas ed upon the al l egat i on thathe had fi r ed atpol i ce of

fi cer s , orot herw i s e comm i t t ed a c r i m e of v i o l e n c e , a n d ( 3 ) t h e Di s t r i c tCo u r t ’ s r e f u s a l t o g r a n th i m a dow nw ar d departur e underthe G ui del i nes foracc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t y . T he D i s t r i ctC our tacc ept ed the PSR ’ s s ent ence c a l c u l a t i o n wi t h o u tru l i n g o n Le e k i n s ’ o b j e c t i o n s t o th e P S R. L eeki ns admi t t ed i n hi s pl ea a gr eementt o bei ng an arm ed c a re e r c ri m in a l s u b

je c t to e n h a n c e d p e n a ltie s u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 924( e)
. T he PSR concl uded thatL eeki ns pos s es s ed orus ed a fi r earm i n connec t i on w i t h a cr i m e of vi ol ence and ther efor e s et h is o f f e n s e le v e l a t th ir ty-f

o u r p u rs u a n t to U .S .S .G . § 4B 1. 4( b) ( 3) ( A ) , and hi s cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryatV I pur s uant t o U
. S
. S
. G
. § 4 B 1
. 4 ( c ) ( 2 )
. L e e k i n s ’ t o t a l o f f e n s e l e v e l o f

th i r t y- 4 fourand cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryy i el ded a gui del i ne7 i m pr i s onm entr ange of

262 t o 327 m ont hs
. T he C our ti m pos ed a s ent ence of 262 m ont hs i m pr i s onm ent , fi ve y ear s s upervi s ed r el eas e, a $2000 fi ne, and a $100 s peci al as s es s m ent
. L eeki ns f iled a tim e lya p p e a l. II. W e tur n fi r s tt o L eeki ns ’ cont ent i on thatthe D i s t r i ct C o u rt f a iled to a p p lyB o o k e r c o rre c tlya n d th a t itd e n ied h im h is S i x t h Ame n d me n tr i g h tt o j u r ytr i a l
. I n Bo o k e r , th e S u p r e me C our thel d t hat“[a ] nyfac t( otherthan a pr i orconvi ct i on) w hi ch i s nece s s aryt o s uppor ta s ent ence exce edi ng the maxi m um au tho ri ze d b ythe f

ac ts establishe d b ya p lea o f g u il tyo r a jury v erd ictm u st be ad m itted b ythe d ef en d an t or p rov ed to a ju ry bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt
. ” B ooker , 543 U
. S. at244 ( ext endi ng t he court ’ s hol di ng i n A ppr endi v. N ew J er s ey , 530 U
. S. 466 ( 2000) )
. H ow ever , as w e have expl ai ned, i n t he s econd of B oo ker’ s tw o o pini on s, [t ] he C our thel d that18 U
. S. C
. § 3553( b) ( 1) [and 18 U
. S. C
. § 3742( e) ] , the pr ovi s i on[s ] of the Sent enci ng R eform A ctof 1984 that[m ade a nd r el i ed on the G ui del i nes bei ng m andat ory , w er e] i ncompat i bl e w i t h t he C ou rt ’s con st i tuti on al rul i ng and that [tho se sect i on s] m u st b e se v e re d a n d e x c ise d
. . . . T h e n e t re su lt w a s to del et e the mandat orynatur e of the G ui del i nes and t r ans form t hem t o advi s orygui del i nes forthe i nform at i on and us e of the di s t r i ctcour t s i n w hom di s cr et i on has now been r ei ns t at ed. U n it ed S tat es v . O rda z, 39 8 F
. 3 d 2 3 6 , 2 3 9 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 5 ). L e e k in s d o e s n o t ar g u e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt m ista k e n ly tr ea ted th e G u idelines as m an d atory , an d n o thing in the rec o rd su g g e sts a n ysu c h e rro r. In f a c t, th e D istric t C o u rt e x p licitly ac k n o w ledg ed at th e se n tenc ing h ea ri n g that “the g u idelines are now onl yadvi s or y [. ] ” A pp. at45. W e r ecogni ze thatL eeki ns pl ed gui l t yw i t h t he expec t at i on t hathe w oul d be s ent ence d t o fi ft een y ear s of8 im p ri so n m en t, i. e. 18 0 m o n ths, an d that the D istri ct C o u rt ’s s e n t e n c e o f

2 6 2 mo n t h s g r e a t l ye x c e e d e d th a te x p e c t a t i o n . As c o u n s e l e x p l a i n e d t o t h e Di s t r i c tCo u r t , L e e k i n s wa s f i f t y - t wo y ear s ol d att he t i m e of s ent enci ng and hoped t o be r el eas ed by age s i xt y - s even, pr es um i ng par ol e atthe ea r l i es tdat e on the s ent ence he fa ced on a pl ea i n s t at e courton char ges s t emm i ng fr om t he s ame i nci dent
. O bvi ous l y , thats i tuat i on change d w hen t he D i s t r i ctC our ts ent ence d hi m t o 262 m ont hs
. H ow ever , the pl ea a gr eementexpl i ci t l yadvi s ed Leeki ns thatthe “maxi m um penal t yfort he off

ens e i s i m pr i s onm entfora per i od of l i fe” and t h a t“ t h e a p p r o p r i a t e s e n t e n c e wi t h i n th e s t a tu t o r yma x i mu ms p ro v id e d f

o r b ylaw
. . . w ill b e d e ter m in e d b yth e c o u rt a t a s ent enci ng hear i ng[. ] ” A pp. at68. T he D i s t r i ctC our tr ei t er at ed t hatadvi ce dur i ng t he col l oquyon t he cha nge of pl ea: T he C our t : “Y ou under s t and thatthe maxi m um penal t yforthe offe ns e coul d be a mandat orym i ni m um of 15 and a m axi m um of li fe ? ” T h e D ef

en d an t: “L ife.” A p p . at 31
. A g ain th e C o u rt s t at ed: “I f any one has es t i m at ed w haty ourgui del i ne w oul d be, and s houl d I fi nd y ourgui del i ne t o be di ffe r entfr om w hatthey have e s t i m at ed, y ou can’ tw i t hdr aw y ourgui l t ypl ea. D o y ou under s t and?” The D efe ndant : “Y es , I do. ” A pp. at32. A t th e c o n clus ion o f th e h ea ri n g , the D istri ct C o u rt concl uded that“ther e ar e s uffi ci entfac t s t o s us t ai n t he fi ndi ngs i n t he pr e- s ent ence r epor t [, ] ” A pp. at62, w hi ch conc l uded that he had “ us ed orpos s es s ed the fi r earm . . . i n connec t i on w i t h a cr i m e of vi ol ence . ” PSR at¶ 22. T hi s fi ndi ng r es ul t ed i n t he in c re a se d o f

f e n se lev e l an d th e c o n se q u e n tial in c re a se in h is s ent ence . L eeki ns ’ chal l enge t o hi s s ent ence focus es on t he fa ctthat he w as s ent ence d bas ed on the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s fac tual fi ndi ng t hathe w as r es pons i bl e forat t empt ed murde rand as s aul ton a pol i ce of fi cer , fac t s t hathe di d notadmi tand thatw er e notfound b ya ju ry . H o w e v e r, as L e e k in s’ c o u n se l re c o g n ize s in h is su p p lem e n tal m e m o ra n d u m , the situ a tio n p re se n ted is s im ilar to that p rese n ted in U n it ed S tat es v . G ri er, 47 5 F
. 3 d 5 5 6 (3d C ir
. 2006) ( en banc )
. I n t hatcas e, the en ba nc maj or i t yr ej ect ed G rie r’s a rg u m e n t th a t th e d istric t co u rt c o u ld n o t co n stitu tio n a lly s ent ence hi m on t he bas i s of fa ct s thathe di d notadmi t , thatno9 j ur yhad found, and thatthe s ent enci ng courthad found bythe pr eponder ance of the evi dence
. I n vi ew of thi s cour t ’ s G r i er deci s i on, t o w hi ch w e ar e bound, w e r ej ectL eeki ns ’ ar gum ent th a t th e D istric t C o u rt v io late d h is S ix th A m e n d m e n t rig h t to t ri al byj uryand F i ft h A m end m ent r i gh tt o d ue p rocess . N orcan w e ca t egor i ze the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s s ent ence as unr eas onabl e, t he s t andar d forappel l at e r evi ew of a s ent ence aft erB ooker
. See B ooker , 543 U
. S. at261- 62. T he D i s t r i ct C our tcr edi t ed the t es t i m onyof Leeki ns ’ es t r anged w i fe that L eeki ns hel d a gun t o herhead a nd thr eat ened he r . T he D i s t r i ct C our tr ecogni zed thatt he G ui del i nes w er e advi s ory , and no nethel ess s entenced L eekins t o im pri sonm ent for 262 m on t hs, a s e n t e n c e t h a tw a s a tt h e b o t t o m o f th e G u i d e l i n e s r a n g e . We s ee no ba s i s t o hol d t hatt o be an unr eas onabl e s ent ence . III . L e e k in s n e x t ar g u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in admi t t i ng t he pol i ce r eporti nt o evi dence beca us e ( 1) i tw as not ver i fi ed ors w or n, and ( 2) the pol i ce of fi cer s w ho pr epar ed the r epor tw er e notpr es entand di d nott es t i fyas w i t nes s es . L eeki ns not es t hatt hi s r epor tw as cons i der ed bythe D i s t r i ctC our tover hi s obj ect i on, A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at4 n. 1, butthati tw as notm ade partof the recor d b efore us. T he d escr i pti on of the off ense conductcont ai ned i n t he PSR w as bas ed i n par ton “i nves t i gat i ve r epor t s . ” PSR at¶ 4. A tthe s ent enci ng hear i ng, the D i s t r i ct C our tas ked the pr obat i on offi cerw hetherthe off i cerhad s een “ a pol i ce r epor ti n t hi s . ” A pp. at58. W hen the off i cerr es ponded i n t he af fi r m at i ve, t he C our tas ked t o s ee the r epor t
. T he A ssist an t U n it ed S tat es A tt o rne y(“A U S A ”) resp o n d ed that there w as a “re p o rtfro m P en b roo k P o li ce D ep artm en t, the o ff icers w h o re sp o n d e d to th e sc e n e ” a n d a “ re p o rt f ro m D a u p h in C o u n ty C ri m inal Inv esti g ati o n D ivisi o n . T h eyinterview ed the o ff icers w h o rep o rt ed to the sce n e.” A p p . at 59
. T h e D istri ct C o u rt as ked t o have the r epor tof “j us tthe off i cer s w ho w er e atthe s cene ” butt he A U SA expl ai ned that“the r epor tI ’ m handi ng overi s an i nt ervi ew w i th t he off i cer s w ho r es ponded t o t he s cene . ” I d.10 In re sp o n se to this C o u rt ’s req u est, the U
. S
. A tt o rne y ’s offi ce f or w ar ded the D auphi n C ount yC r i m i nal I nves t i gat i on r e p o r twr i t t e n b yDau p h i n Cou n t yDet e c t i v e Th o ma s E. Y u rch ison , w h ich c o n tai n s v erb ati m tr an scripts o f Y u rch ison ’s i nt ervi ew s w i t h O ffi cer s Sw ank and Bl os s , w ho bot h r ecount ed L eeki ns ’ fi r i ng a s hotatthem. T he ext entt o w hi ch the D i s t r i ct C o u rt re lied o n th e f

a c ts c o n tain e d in th e p o lice re p o rt w h e n it adopt ed the PSR i s uncl ear , and w e w i l l ther efor e cons i der L eekins’ argum ent as t o the unrel i abil i t yof the off i cers ’ sta tem e n ts in th e p o lice re p o rt. I n Shepar d v. U ni t ed St at es , 544 U
. S. 13 ( 2005) , the Supr eme C our thel d t hata s ent enci ng courtcoul d notl ook t o a pol i ce r epor tt o det erm i ne w hetheran ea r l i ergui l t ypl ea qua l i fi ed as a pr edi cat e convi ct i on forpurpos es of the A r m ed C ar eer C r i m i nal A ct
. T he pl ur al i t yopi ni on i n t hatcas e hel d t hatthe s ent enci ng cour tcoul d l ook onl yt o t he cha r gi ng document s , the w r i t t en pl ea a gr eement , the tr ans cr i ptof the pl ea c ol l oquy , and anyexpl i ci tfac tual fi ndi ngs bythe tr i al cour tt o w hi ch the defe ndantas s ent ed. B eca us e the opi ni on w as l i m i t ed t o t he narr ow s t atut or yi s s ue bef or e i t , the opi ni on di d nots t at e that p o lice re p o rts w e re in a d m iss ib le a s a g e n e ra l m a tter in s ent enci ng hear i ngs , and i thas notbeen s o i nt erpr et ed. C o u n se l f

o r L e e k in s a rg u e s th a t “a m e re p o lice re p o rt is noti nher ent l yr el i abl e, ” A pr . 10, 2007 l t r . at5, and w e do not di s agr ee. O n t he otherhand, a pol i ce r epor tal s o i s not in h e re n tlyu n re liab le. In ste a d , w e re v e rt to th e g e n e ra l p rin c ip le t hatt he fa ct s upon w hi ch a j udge bas es a s ent ence m us thave
“ ‘su f f icie n t in d icia o f

re liab ili tyto su p p o rt [ th e ir] p ro b a b le ac cu rac y . ’” U n it ed S tat es v . M iel e, 98 9 F
. 2 d 6 5 9 , 6 6 3 (3d C ir
. 1993) ( quot i ng U
. S. S. G
. § 6A
. 1. 3( a) )
. Such i ndi ci a maybe s uffi ci enteven i f theydo notm eettr i al s t andar ds ; the Feder al R u les o f E v iden ce d o n o t app ly
. S ee U
. S
. S
. G
. § 6 A 1
. 3 (a) (“In r es ol vi ng anydi s put e conc erni ng a fa ct ori m por t antt o t he s ent enci ng det erm i nat i on, the courtm aycons i derr el evant i nform at i on w i t houtr egar d t o i t s admi s s i bi l i t yunderthe rul es of evi dence appl i cabl e att r i al , pr ovi ded thatthe i nform at i on has s uffi ci enti ndi ci a of r el i abi l i t y [. ] ” ( emphasi s added) ) ; U ni t ed St at es v. B r ot her s , 75 F. 3d 845, 848 ( 3d C i r . 1996)
. ForT h e P S R sta tes th a t “o n e sp e n t sh e ll ca sin g ” w a s f o u n d in 5 t he bedr oom , PSR at¶ 8, w hi l e the pol i ce r epor t stat es thatt he bedr oom r evol ver h ad “tw o s pents hel l cas i ngs i n t he fi ve s hot 11 exampl e, a D i s t r i ctC our tm ay“cr edi thear s ayevi dence over sw o rn tes tim o n y , es p e c iallyw h e re th e re is o th e r e v id e n c e to corr obor at e the i ncons i s t enthear s ays t at ement
. ” M i el e, 989 F. 2d at664. H er e, t her e i s s uffi ci entevi dence thatL eeki ns had a w e a p o n w h e n h e e n ter e d th e h o u se , n o tw ith sta n d in g h is s t at ementt o t he contr ary . Fi r s t , M s . L eeki ns t es t i fi ed atthe s ent enci ng hear i ng t hatL eeki ns had enga ged i n aggr es s i ve behavi orw i t h a gun j us tbefor e the pol i ce a r r i ved, i ncl udi ng: ( 1) ki cki ng dow n t he doort o herhous e, ( 2) “r i pp[i ng] the phone out of the w al l ” t o di s connec ther911 cal l , A pp. at49, ( 3) pus hi ng herdow n on t he fl oor , ( 4) pl aci ng a gun t o herhead, and ( 5) a c c u sin g h e r o f

tu rn in g h is f

a m ilya g a in st h im a n d w a n tin g h im t o “s i ti n j ai l and r ot
. ” I d. A l t ho ug h, as noted abo ve, M s. L eekins’ t est i m on yw as nots w or n, “uns w or n, butr el i abl e and pr obat i ve” e vi dence m ay b e re lie d o n f

o r p u rp o s e s o f

d e te rm in in g a n a p p ro p ri a te s e n te n c e . U ni t ed St at es v. Y eaman, 194 F. 3d 442, 463 ( 3d C i r . 1999)
. T he sent encing co urthad t he b enef i tof o bservi ng M s. L eekins’ t es t i m onyand i tcan i nferr el i abi l i t yfr om a w i t nes s ’ s w or ds and ac ti o n s. W e g ive g rea t def ere n ce to a p residing jud g e’s cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i ons i n s ent enci ng pr ocee di ngs beca us e s he i s abl e t o di r ect l yobs erve a t es t i fy i ng w i t nes s ’ s t one and d em ea n o r. Second, L eeki ns ’ pos s es s i on of the gun w as corr obor at ed byt he pr es ence i n L eeki ns ’ aut om obi l e of the hol s t erforthe gun t hathe us ed t o s hoothi m s el f. T he hol s t er ’ s pr es ence pr ovi des ci r cumst ant i al evi dence thatL eeki ns had the gun w i t h hi m w hen he arr i ved atM s. L eekins’ res i den ce, corr ob orat es M s. L eekins’ t es t i m onyt hathe had a gun w i t h hi m w hen he ki cked dow n her door , and ca s t s doubton L eeki ns ’ t es t i m onythathe found the gun ups t ai r s i n M s . L eeki ns ’ hous e. 5c y lin d e r. T h e re w e re a ls o th re e liv e ro u n d s in th e c y lin d e r.” R epor tat13. T he Pol i ce Repor tal s o cont ai ns a n arrat i ve bas ed upon D et ect i ves Y ur chi s on an d W oodr i ng’ s N ovember25, 2003 in ter v iew w ith L e e k in s a t th e D a u p h in C o u n tyP riso n . T h is narr at i ve r epor t s t hatL eeki ns s t at ed he “ t ook a . 38 cal
. handgun w i th h im to hi s w i fe’ s hous e[, ] ” R epor tat7, t hathe “ne verfi r ed t he gun pr i ort o t he dayof t he i nci dent [, ] ” i d. , and thathe coul d not r emem berfi r i ng t he gun atoffi cer s , butt hat“[i ]t co u l d have happene d. ” R epor tat8. A s the D i s t r i ctC our texpl i ci t lyadopt ed t he fa ct s as r ecount ed i n the PSR , and not t he fact s s et for t h i n the pol i ce r epor t , i t i s uncl ear t o w hat ext ent t hi s r epor tw as r el i ed upon b ythe C o u rt
. W e w ill o n lyn o te he re tha t th ese fa cts are i ncons i s t ent w it h L eeki ns ’ t es t i m onyas t o event s thatdayatthe hous e.
12 T hi r d, t he r el i abi l i t yof Leeki ns ’ t es t i m onyi t s el f atthe s ent enci ng hear i ng i s underm i ned byhi s couns el ’ s s t at ementthat “M r . L eeki ns has s uffe r ed a s i gni fi canti nj uryw hi ch has aff ect ed hi s abi l i t yt o r emem berand r eca l l event s thathappene d. ” A pp. at45. Fi nal l y , w e obs erve thatthe verbat i m s t at ement s bythe t w o pol i ce of

fi cer s at t ache d t o t he pol i ce r epor tthatL eeki ns s hot att hem, al ong w i t h t he above

- not ed corr obor at i ve evi dence and t es t i m ony , di s t i ngui s hes thi s cas e fr om ot her s w her e the fa ctual fi ndi ng ats ent enci ng w as bas ed i n l ar ge partupon a s ol e, i nher ent l yunr el i abl e s our ce. See M i el e, 989 F. 2d at660- 61 ( concl udi ng t hata fi ndi ng of drug quant i t yas es t i m at ed i n t he P S R and ado pted bydis t ri ctcou rtdid not m eetthe G uidel i nes’ “s uffi ci enti ndi ci a of r el i abi l i t y ” s t andar d “[i ] n vi ew of the num er ous i ncons i s t enci es i n t he r ecor d, the fa ctthatthe s our ce of m os tof the cr i t i cal evi dence w as an addi ct - i nform antw i t h an i m pai r ed mem or y , and the l ack of anyfi ndi ngs bythe di s tr i ct cour tot hert han a s i ngl e conc l us oryfi ndi ng as t o drug q u an ti ty ”). W e have obs erved that“a s ent enci ng j udge maycons i der in f o rm a tio n th a t is la rg e ly u n lim ite d a s to k in d o r s o u rc e ,”T he D i s t r i ctC our t not ed t hat “eve n i f I i gnor e the fa ctt hat 6 t he off i cer s s ayhe s hotatt hem, w e have t he fa ctt hathe [he l d] t he g u n a t t h e h e a d o f h i s wi f e . ” App
. a t 4 6
. Th e PSR not es t hat L eeki ns w as char ged w i t h aggr avat ed as s aul tand bur glaryunder Penns y l vani a l aw , among other cr i m es , but does not s peci fy the fac t s under l y i ng eac h char ge. A t t ache d t o t he pol i ce r epor ti s w hat appea r s t o be a dr aft pol i ce cr i m i nal compl ai nt t hat char ges L eeki ns w ith a g g ra v a te d a s s a u lt u p o n M s . L e e k in s , a m o n g o th e r c ri m e s . T he part i es do notr efe rt o t he dr aft an d i tdoes notent eri nt o our cons i der at i on. 13 U ni t ed St at es v. Paul i no, 996 F. 2d 1541, 1547 ( 3d C i r . 1993) ( i nt ernal ci t at i on and quot at i on m arks om i t t ed)
. I n t hi s cas e, the d e tail a n d in ter n a l co n sis ten c yo f th e tra n sc rib e d in ter v iew s w ith t he off i cer s r egar di ng t he fa ctof the s hoot i ng, t ogetherw i t h t he ot hercorr obor at i ng m at er i al , pr ovi de s uffi ci enti ndi ci a of the reli ab il ityo f th e o ff

icers’ v ersion o f th e sh o o ti n g . S ee C raw fo rd v. J acks on, 323 F. 3d 123, 130 ( D
. C
. C i r . 2003) ( w her e pol i ce in v e stig a tiv e re p o rt w a s “ q u ite d e taile d ,” a n d p ro v id e d “ a f a irly f u ll ac c o u n t o f

th e c irc u m sta n c e s s u rro u n d in g ” a p a ro le vi ol at i on, s uch det ai l hel d t o be “i ndi ci a of r el i abi l i t y ” and d o cu m en t held to b e a p p rop ri atelyco n side red in p aro le bo ard ’s r evoca t i on) ; cf. G ambi no v. M orr i s , 134 F. 3d 156, 162- 63 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ( vague a nd concl us oryas s ert i on i n pol i ce r epor tthat p e tit io n e r w a s lin k e d to o rg a n ize d c rim e in a p p ro p ria tely cons i der ed bypar ol e comm i s s i on)
. W e ther efor e conc l ude that t he D i s t r i ctC our tcoul d have r eas onabl yfound thatthe ver s i on of eve nt s r ecount ed i n t he PSR – bas ed i n par ton t he pol i ce report– w as m ore cr edibl e t han that pr ov i ded byL eekins. 6 I V. Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s j udgm entof s ent ence .