United States v. David Armstrong, 920 F.3d 395

Defendant David Armstrong sold heroin to a confidential informant during three controlled buys; he pleaded guilty to one distribution count and faced sentencing on relevant conduct.
Each controlled buy involved about one gram of heroin for $140; the informant told police she had purchased one gram from Armstrong ~70 times over 18–24 months.
Probation and the Government used the informant’s 70-gram estimate to calculate an enhanced Guidelines range; Armstrong argued he only sold small amounts a few times.
At the sentencing hearing neither Armstrong nor the informant testified; the court admitted and considered out-of-court statements and officer testimony about the informant’s prior purchases.
The district court found the informant’s statements reliable (corroborated by the three one-gram buys and lack of motive to exaggerate) and sentenced Armstrong to 37 months.
On appeal Armstrong argued the informant’s hearsay was insufficiently corroborated, her identity was undisclosed without good cause, and the court therefore erred in inflating his Guidelines range.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Reliability of informant hearsay for sentencing	Gov: District courts may rely on hearsay with a minimal indicia of reliability; corroboration by controlled buys suffices	Armstrong: Informant’s claim of ~70 purchases lacked particularized corroboration and was unreliable	Court: Affirmed; minimal indicia of reliability met—three corroborated one-gram buys plus informant’s lack of motive justified crediting her statements
Standard for relying on unidentified informant	Gov: Even unidentified informant hearsay may be used if there is good cause for nondisclosure and sufficient corroboration	Armstrong: District court failed to show good cause and did not sufficiently corroborate the 70-purchase claim	Court: No reversible error; defendant knew informant’s identity and chose not to call her; corroboration requirement satisfied; plain-error review raised no obvious error
Burden of corroboration	Gov: "Sufficient corroboration" requires adequate, not exhaustive, corroboration to meet the low indicia-of-reliability standard	Armstrong: Corroboration must match specific quantity/time assertions	Court: "Sufficient" means adequate; particularized corroboration of every detail not required; Rogers and Guidelines commentary support this view

United States v. Silverman, 976 F.2d 1502 (6th Cir. 1992) (hearsay admissible at sentencing with minimal indicia of reliability)
United States v. Smith, 887 F.2d 104 (6th Cir. 1989) (discussing corroboration and informant testimony at sentencing)
United States v. Moncivais, 492 F.3d 652 (6th Cir. 2007) (describing indicia-of-reliability standard as relatively low)
United States v. Gibson, 985 F.2d 860 (6th Cir. 1993) (appellate standard of review for sentencing factfindings is clearly erroneous)
United States v. Darwich, 337 F.3d 645 (6th Cir. 2003) (standard for reversal under clear-error review)
United States v. Latouf, 132 F.3d 320 (6th Cir. 1997) (discussion of appellate review standards)
United States v. Rogers, 1 F.3d 341 (5th Cir. 1993) (sufficient corroboration can justify reliance on unidentified informant without corroborating every specific amount)
United States v. Gibbs, 182 F.3d 408 (6th Cir. 1999) (reversal where hearsay was conjectural and source of informant’s knowledge was unexplained)