Opinion ID: 201685
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Reliability and Sufficiency of the Evidence

Text: 22 Finally, Luciano challenges the reliability and sufficiency of the evidence relied on by the sentencing court in applying U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5). Section 2K2.1(b)(5) provides for a four-level enhancement [i]f the defendant used or possessed any firearm or ammunition in connection with another felony offense. Due to its finding that Luciano committed assault with a deadly weapon at the bus stop, the district court applied a four-level enhancement to Luciano's sentence. Luciano argues that the government failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Luciano committed the assault, because the evidence presented at the sentencing hearing was hearsay and unreliable. 23 We review the district court's determination of reliability for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Figaro, 935 F.2d 4, 8 (1st Cir.1991) (`[T]he sentencing judge enjoys wide discretion in determining both the relevance and reliability of the sentencing information ....') (quoting United States v. Iguaran-Palmar, 926 F.2d 7, 10 (1st Cir.1991)). At sentencing, `the 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.' Tardiff, 969 F.2d at 1287 (quoting U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3(a)). 24 The standard of review for the district court's finding that Luciano had committed assault with a deadly weapon is clear error. If a party assigns error to a factual finding made at sentencing, we review the finding for clear error. In doing so, we ask only whether the court clearly erred in finding that the government proved the disputed fact by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Powell, 50 F.3d 94, 102-03 (1st Cir.1995) (internal citation omitted). See also United States v. Peterson, 233 F.3d 101, 111 (1st Cir.2000) (reviewing the factual findings underlying the application of a sentencing enhancement for clear error). 25 As we have already noted, Camacho's statement appears to have all of the authenticity and reliability of an excited utterance that would qualify as a hearsay exception under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(2). The facts that Officer Thornton was able to quickly locate Luciano near the bus stop, identify him due to the orange clothing Camacho had described, and especially that Officer Thornton recovered a gun from Luciano, corroborate Camacho's statement. 26 In addition, the girlfriend, Torres, confirmed that she and Luciano had been fighting just before the incident. Torres also admitted that she had seen Luciano with a gun in the past. Finally, although Torres denied that Luciano pointed the gun at her, the district court cited a logical reason for discounting her testimony on that point, beyond the fact that she was a biased witness: Torres likely would not have seen a gun pointed at the back of her own head. 27 We therefore find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in relying on Camacho's statements. See, e.g., United States v. Cash, 266 F.3d 42, 44 (1st Cir.2001) (finding hearsay statements of defendant's cellmate sufficiently reliable for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3(a) in light of corroborating information). Moreover, we find that Camacho's statements and the corroborating evidence provide sufficient basis for the district court's assault finding. Therefore, there is no clear error.