Opinion ID: 618626
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reliability of the Evidence Considered at Sentencing

Text: Next, Robles argues that the district court erred at sentencing when it considered testimony that he had worked as a Mexican police officer and that indicated the existence of outstanding warrants for his arrest in Mexico. Robles argues the testimony constituted unreliable evidence. Sentencing courts have wide discretion at sentencing as to the kind of information considered or its source. United States v. Pratt, 553 F.3d 1165, 1170 (8th Cir.2009). A court may consider all relevant evidence at sentencing, regardless of its admissibility under the rules of evidence, provided that the evidence has sufficient indicia of reliability. United States v. Ortiz, 636 F.3d 389, 393 (8th Cir.2011). The evidence need not be limited to evidence relating to the scope of the crimes charged and may include uncorroborated hearsay, provided the defendant is given a chance to rebut or explain it. United States v. Pratt, 553 F.3d at 1170 (quoting United States v. Atkins, 250 F.3d 1203, 1213 (8th Cir.2001)). [T]he sentencing process does not carry the same evidentiary protections guaranteed during a criminal trial. Id. (quoting United States v. Agboola, 417 F.3d 860, 865 (8th Cir. 2005)). At sentencing, Robert Hansen, a member of the Tri-State Drug Task Force unit of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), testified that he had spoken with a DEA agent in Mexico who informed him that Robles had worked as a Mexican police officer. Additionally, the officer testified the agent told him that warrants had been issued for Robles's arrest in Mexico, though he was unaware of whether any action had been taken on the warrants or if they were still outstanding. This hearsay evidence had sufficient indicia of reliability, and Robles had the opportunity to rebut the same. Accordingly, we conclude that the court did not err in considering Detective Hansen's testimony.