United States v. Lilly, 65 F.4th 38

Lilly, a convicted felon, pleaded guilty to one count of possession of firearms by a felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and § 924(a)(2).
On May 16, 2020, Lilly confronted a 21-year-old ("Doe") in his teenage daughter's bedroom; Doe said Lilly brandished a shotgun, Lilly told police he had wielded a club.
On June 12, 2020, officers found Lilly's daughter holding a loaded handgun; a later search of a locked bedroom turned up a loaded rifle and two shotguns; keys matching the locks were found on Lilly's person when arrested.
Doe testified under oath to a grand jury reiterating that Lilly had held him at shotgun-point and identified the shotgun in a photo; a federal indictment followed and Lilly pleaded guilty.
The PSR produced a Guidelines range of 24–30 months (Total Offense Level 15, CHC III); the district court imposed 30 months and found by a preponderance that Lilly had wielded a firearm during the May 16 incident.
Lilly appealed, arguing the court's factual finding that he brandished a firearm (rather than a club) was clearly erroneous and rendered his sentence procedurally unreasonable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court clearly erred in finding Lilly wielded a firearm on May 16, 2020	Lilly: Doe was unreliable (lied about other matters) and Lilly told police he had a club, so the gun finding lacks sufficient support	Govt: Doe's sworn grand jury testimony had indicia of reliability; corroborating facts (keys, father's statements, daughter's messages, obstruction enhancement) supported crediting Doe	Court affirmed: no clear error; grand jury testimony and corroborating evidence were reliable enough by preponderance standard
Whether the court could consider the May 16 incident to determine where to impose sentence within the Guidelines range	Lilly: Using the disputed fact to aggravate placement was improper because the finding was erroneous	Govt: Court may consider aggravating facts in § 3553(a) analysis so long as findings have sufficient indicia of reliability	Court affirmed: district court permissibly considered the incident as aggravating; reliance was not procedurally unreasonable

United States v. Williams, 10 F.3d 910 (1st Cir. 1993) (grand jury testimony may supply adequate indicia of reliability at sentencing)
United States v. Rivera-Ruiz, 43 F.4th 172 (1st Cir. 2022) (standard of review for sentencing factfinding and clear-error rule)
United States v. Castillo-Torres, 8 F.4th 68 (1st Cir. 2021) (limits on relying on unreliable hearsay at sentencing)
United States v. Mendoza-Maisonet, 962 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2020) (review standards for sentencing determinations)
United States v. Díaz-Rivera, 957 F.3d 20 (1st Cir. 2020) (reiterating requirement that sentencing facts rest on reliable evidence)
United States v. Cates, 897 F.3d 349 (1st Cir. 2018) (credibility determinations are within the sentencing court's purview)
United States v. Bernier, 660 F.3d 543 (1st Cir. 2011) (deference to court's credibility judgments at sentencing)