United States v. DeAngelo A. Rome, 713 F. App'x 899

In 2016 Rome was indicted on three counts of possession of a firearm/ammunition by a convicted felon based on three separate incidents involving a handgun, an extended magazine found in a victim’s backyard with Rome’s fingerprint, and a rifle recovered from a vehicle with Rome’s palm print and DNA.
Rome pled guilty to all three counts; at sentencing the district court applied a Guidelines cross-reference (U.S.S.G. § 2X1.1) treating the ammunition in the second count as connected to attempted first-degree murder, increasing his base offense level.
The district court relied in part on Officer Amber Bernard’s testimony recounting the shooting victim’s out-of-court statements (victim identified Rome in a photo array, said Rome shot him from the backyard, and noted an alleged “beef”). Defense counsel had introduced a transcript of the recorded interview and cross-examined Bernard.
Rome argued on appeal that the district court improperly relied on unreliable hearsay (the victim’s statements as repeated by Bernard) to find premeditated intent required for attempted first-degree murder, and that the objection should have barred the cross-reference.
The Eleventh Circuit reviewed under the plain-error standard because Rome’s counsel did not object at sentencing, and found Bernard’s testimony and the victim’s statements sufficiently reliable, with the court making explicit factual findings and Rome having an opportunity to rebut.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court erred by relying on hearsay to apply a cross-reference to attempted first-degree murder under U.S.S.G. § 2X1.1	Rome: victim’s out-of-court statements (via Bernard) were unreliable hearsay and could not support a finding of premeditation	Government: hearsay was reliable, corroborated by physical evidence and Rome’s presence, and defense had chance to rebut	No plain error: hearsay had sufficient indicia of reliability, court made explicit credibility findings, and defense could rebut; cross-reference upheld
Appropriate standard of appellate review	Rome: argued for de novo review (citing Ghertler)	Government: plain-error applies because no objection at sentencing	Plain-error review applied because counsel waived objection; Rome failed to show plain, prejudicial error

United States v. Query, 928 F.2d 383 (11th Cir. 1991) (sentencing-court factual findings based on hearsay reviewed for clear error)
United States v. Parrish, 427 F.3d 1345 (11th Cir. 2005) (plain-error review applies when sentencing objections are waived)
United States v. Monroe, 353 F.3d 1346 (11th Cir. 2003) (discretion to correct forfeited errors only if they seriously affect fairness, integrity, or public reputation of proceedings)
United States v. Anderton, 136 F.3d 747 (11th Cir. 1998) (district court may rely on hearsay at sentencing if reliable, with explicit credibility findings and opportunity to rebut)
United States v. Ghertler, 605 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2010) (distinguishable; concerned sufficiency of district court’s explanation for sentence rather than reliance on hearsay)