United States v. Zachary Anderson Wailes, 44 F.4th 823

Zachary Wailes robbed Peoples Bank in Scranton, Iowa on Feb. 25, 2021, taking $19,157; he later pleaded guilty to bank robbery.
The PSR applied a five‑level enhancement under USSG §2B3.1(b)(2)(C) for possession/brandishing of a firearm based primarily on teller C.W.’s post‑robbery law‑enforcement interview stating she saw a handgun handle in Wailes’s right pocket and that he briefly grabbed it.
Two other tellers did not see a gun but said Wailes kept his hand in his right pocket or that his pocket appeared weighted; their recorded interviews were admitted at sentencing.
Wailes pointed to inconsistencies: an initial Suspect Identification Profile (completed the day of the robbery) omitted any gun, the security video did not plainly show a weapon, and C.W. later resigned after admitting embezzlement.
The district court, relying on the recorded teller interviews, still frames, and agent testimony, found by a preponderance of the evidence that a firearm was involved and imposed the five‑level enhancement; it sentenced Wailes to 100 months.
On appeal, Wailes argued the enhancement rested on unreliable, uncorroborated hearsay; the Eighth Circuit affirmed, finding the hearsay sufficiently reliable and no clear error in the preponderance finding.

Issue	Wailes’s Argument	Government’s Argument	Held
Admissibility/reliability of teller hearsay at sentencing	C.W.’s post‑event interview is unreliable and inconsistent with earlier profile and video; hearsay shouldn’t support enhancement.	District court may rely on hearsay at sentencing if it has indicia of reliability; recorded interviews and corroboration suffice.	Court held the district court permissibly relied on hearsay that had sufficient indicia of reliability.
Sufficiency of evidence to prove firearm possession/brandishing by preponderance	Evidence (video, other tellers’ statements, inconsistencies) does not establish firearm; clear error standard requires reversal.	Teller interviews, corroborating details, and video circumstances support a preponderance finding; clear‑error review gives deference to district court.	Court held the preponderance finding was not clearly erroneous and affirmed the enhancement.

United States v. Hoelzer, 183 F.3d 880 (8th Cir. 1999) (hearsay may be used at sentencing if it has sufficient indicia of reliability).
United States v. Woods, 596 F.3d 445 (8th Cir. 2010) (victim hearsay admissible for enhancements when sufficiently reliable).
United States v. Sheridan, 859 F.3d 579 (8th Cir. 2017) (factors for hearsay reliability: consistency, timing, demeanor, corroboration).
United States v. Dock, 967 F.3d 903 (8th Cir. 2020) (clarifies clear‑error standard for factual findings at sentencing).
United States v. Clark, 932 F.3d 1064 (8th Cir. 2019) (district court has discretion to weigh reliability of hearsay evidence).
United States v. Gleason, 25 F.3d 605 (8th Cir. 1994) (a declarant’s firearms experience can bolster reliability of a weapon description).