Opinion ID: 182229
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Government’s Proof of Prior Convictions

Text: Ortiz contends the government failed to prove his ACCA-qualifying prior convictions by a preponderance of the evidence because (1) the probation officer, rather than the prosecution, provided the state court documents evidencing those convictions, and (2) the state court documents were not certified. Ortiz cites no authority for his claim that a sentencing court can rely only on documents filed by the government. Given that Ortiz did not raise this argument in the district court and must show plain error, this omission is fatal. In any event, we find no error at all. The probation officer attached the state court documents to the PSI addendum in response to Ortiz’s objection that the PSI failed to specify the source of its criminal history information. We see no reason why the government was required to file a duplicate set of the documents. Likewise, there is no requirement that a document must be certified to prove a prior conviction. In fact, “[a] court may consider any information (including hearsay), regardless of its admissibility at trial, in determining whether factors exist that would enhance a defendant’s sentence, provided that the information is 14 sufficiently reliable.” United States v. Wilson, 183 F.3d 1291, 1301 (11th Cir. 1999) (concluding that, while a certified copy of a conviction would be “the best approach,” testimony from a probation officer that the PSI’s prior conviction information came from court documents was sufficient.) Moreover, Ortiz did not show that the uncertified documents were not sufficiently reliable. Although Ortiz offered various arguments for why his prior convictions did not qualify him as an armed career criminal under the ACCA, Ortiz never disputed the existence of his prior convictions. The only fact Ortiz disputed was the precise dates his two cocaine trafficking offenses were committed in 2000. The district court used the dates to which Ortiz admitted at sentencing, January 7 and14, 2000, dates consistent with the criminal information provided by the probation officer.5 Under the circumstances, the district court did not err in relying on the uncertified copies of the state court charging documents and judgments provided by the probation officer.6 AFFIRMED. 5 Ortiz has never argued that the uncertified copies provided by the probation officer were improper sources of evidence under Shepard. 6 Ortiz also has not shown that his mandatory-minimum 180-month sentence under the ACCA is contrary to the goals, purpose and objectives of the Sentencing Commission and the Sentencing Guidelines and violates the Eighth Amendment. 15