United States v. William Sheridan
859 F.3d 579
8th Cir.2017Background
- Sheridan pled guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to 108 months.
- The district court used a cross-reference to § 2A3.1 and related enhancements based on alleged sexual abuse of T.S., Sheridan's daughter.
- PSR calculation: base level 30 under § 2A3.1(a)(2), plus a 4-level enhancement, a 2-level care-enhancement, and a 3-level acceptance reduction, total level 33; criminal history II; advisory range 151–188 months but capped by § 5G1.1(a).
- T.S. did not testify at sentencing; government introduced related hearsay through other witnesses.
- The district court overruled objections to the hearsay and applied the cross-reference by preponderance of the evidence, then varied downward to 108 months.
- Sheridan appealed arguing improper reliance on hearsay and a Sixth Amendment confrontation issue; the court affirmed[1].
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the cross-reference and enhancements were properly applied | Sheridan: hearsay lacked reliability and violated due process | Government: hearsay reliable enough under § 6A1.3(a) with opportunity to rebut | No clear abuse; cross-reference and enhancements upheld |
| Whether the Confrontation Clause applies at sentencing | Sheridan: violation of Sixth Amendment confrontation rights | Government: Confrontation Clause does not apply at sentencing | Confrontation Clause does not apply at sentencing; claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Timberlake, 679 F.3d 1008 (8th Cir. 2012) (review of sentencing findings and guidelines de novo for law; clear-error standard for facts)
- United States v. Woods, 183 F. App’x 592 (8th Cir. 2006) (hearsay evidence at sentencing; abuse of discretion standard)
- United States v. Pratt, 553 F.3d 1165 (8th Cir. 2009) (reliability of hearsay at sentencing; respondent may rebut)
- United States v. Cassidy, 6 F.3d 554 (8th Cir. 1993) (hearsay reliability considerations at sentencing)
- United States v. Fleck, 413 F.3d 883 (8th Cir. 2005) (Confrontation Clause not applicable to sentencing)
- Wallace v. United States, 408 F.3d 1046 (8th Cir. 2005) (sentencing hearsay reliability considerations)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause protections for testimonial statements)
- United States v. Farnsworth, 92 F.3d 1001 (10th Cir. 1996) (distinguishing reliability of overheard statements)
- United States v. Fennell, 65 F.3d 812 (10th Cir. 1995) (reliability of sentencing hearsay; concurrent reasoning)