United States v. Deshon Adams, 879 F.3d 826

Background

Defendant Deshon Adams, a longtime Vice Lords gang member with juvenile and adult convictions, pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm; PSR recommended offense level 21, CHC V, guideline range 70–87 months.
Police found a 9mm pistol with a 30-round magazine under a wheelchair ramp after officers approached Adams; Adams made inculpatory gang-related statements during interviews.
The government submitted sentencing memoranda summarizing police reports that linked Adams to up to seven unsolved gang-related shootings (including murder and attempted murder) based on witness statements, confidential informants, jailhouse informants, physical evidence, and Adams’s own remarks.
Judge Griesbach held two sentencing hearings, heard Detective testimony about some informants’ reliability, gave Adams the reports in discovery, and allowed him to supplement or present witnesses; Adams declined to call witnesses.
The judge expressly cautioned about the risks of relying on confidential informants and jailhouse snitches, declined to make specific factual findings about the seven shootings, and instead relied narrowly on corroborated material and the PSR showing Adams’s immersion in violent gang culture.
The court imposed an 87-month sentence (top of the guideline range), consecutive to a state probation-revocation sentence; Adams appealed arguing the court impermissibly relied on unreliable evidence and lacked opportunity to rebut.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether judge improperly considered unreliable evidence tying Adams to seven uncharged shootings at sentencing	Adams: judge relied on summaries of police reports, confidential informants, and jailhouse snitches that were unreliable	Government/Judge: evidence was largely corroborative or confirmed PSR, judge treated it cautiously and made no findings on specific incidents	Court: no abuse of discretion — judge properly considered evidence broadly but limited weight and declined specific factual findings
Whether Adams was denied opportunity to rebut the government’s sentencing evidence	Adams: insufficient chance to rebut summaries and informant claims	Government: reports were provided in discovery, hearings held, Adams could have presented witnesses or evidence and cross-examined detective	Court: Adams had ample opportunity and did not avail himself; claim meritless
Whether reliance on uncharged conduct violated due process because it was unreliable	Adams: sentencing on unreliable info violates due process	Government: sentencing judges may consider wide-ranging information; judge exercised caution and relied on corroborated points	Court: Due-process preserved; judge’s limited use of the material was permissible
Whether the within-guidelines 87-month sentence was substantively unreasonable	Adams: sentence driven by unreliable evidence of violent conduct	Government: within-guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable and supported by Adams’s history and need for deterrence/public protection	Court: affirmed — presumption stands and Adams failed to rebut it

Key Cases Cited

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard for reviewing substantive reasonableness of sentences)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (within-guidelines sentences are presumptively reasonable)
Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476 (2011) (sentencing judges may consider a broad range of information and sources)
Tucker, 404 U.S. 443 (1972) (court may consider broad information at sentencing)
United States v. Martinez, 650 F.3d 667 (7th Cir. 2011) (guideline-range sentences receive a presumption of reasonableness)
United States v. Zehm, 217 F.3d 506 (7th Cir. 2000) (defendant has due-process right to be sentenced on reliable information)