Background
Deandre Hensley was arrested on July 21, 2023, on outstanding state warrants. Law enforcement discovered a Glock 26 9mm pistol in his waistband, along with cocaine, an iPhone, and keys to a Chrysler 300. A grand jury indicted Hensley on three counts: being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); possession with intent to distribute cocaine base under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C); and possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Hensley entered a plea agreement pleading guilty to both firearm counts, with the government agreeing to dismiss the drug count.
The plea agreement included a factual stipulation regarding a July 4, 2023, shooting at a Davenport bar in which two people were injured. Law enforcement found multiple 9mm casings in a nearby alley. Surveillance video showed Hensley’s dark Chrysler 300—matching distinctive features visible in the footage—in the bar’s parking lot and alley near the time shots were fired. Location data from Hensley’s iPhone placed him in the bar’s parking lot minutes before the shooting. Ballistics testing confirmed that the casings from the alley matched the Glock 26 recovered from Hensley two weeks later, and Hensley admitted possessing both that firearm and ammunition of the same brands as those found at the scene on July 4, 2023.
At sentencing, the government requested that the court apply a cross-reference to attempted murder based on the July 4 shooting, increasing Hensley’s offense level. Hensley objected, arguing that use of uncharged conduct at sentencing is “categorically unconstitutional” and that the government failed to prove his involvement in the shooting.
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the sentence and rejected Hensley’s arguments. The court held that the use of uncharged conduct to determine a defendant’s sentence within the parameters set by statute is constitutionally permissible under Fifth and Sixth Amendment precedent. The court cited United States v. Steffen, 818 F.3d 770 (8th Cir. 2016), holding that it is “constitutionally permissible” for a district court to determine a defendant’s advisory Guidelines range using uncharged relevant conduct, noting that the Sentencing Guidelines explicitly permit consideration of conduct that is not formally charged or an element of conviction.
On the factual question of whether Hensley was the shooter, the court found no clear error in the district court’s findings. While acknowledging that mere presence at the scene is insufficient to establish participation, the court emphasized that this case involved far more than presence: surveillance showing Hensley’s vehicle in the alley at the critical time, location data from his phone placing him at the parking lot minutes before the shooting, ballistics matching his firearm to casings found in the alley, his admission that he possessed the same weapon and ammunition on July 4, and the prosecution’s burden being met by a preponderance of the evidence. The court noted that “[a]ll the pieces fit together just right” to support the finding that Hensley “was the one who fired the shots.”
The court also held that the shooting qualified as relevant conduct for Guidelines purposes because it occurred during the same day as Hensley’s unlawful firearm possession—the offense of conviction. The district court imposed a 144-month sentence on Count 1 and a mandatory minimum 60-month sentence on Count 3, to run consecutively for a total of 204 months, which fell within the advisory Guidelines range of 135 to 168 months. The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s consideration of Hensley’s age, background, and substance abuse struggles.
Key Takeaways
- Sentencing courts may lawfully apply Guidelines cross-references based on uncharged conduct where the conduct qualifies as “relevant conduct” under the Guidelines definition—this use of uncharged conduct does not violate the Fifth or Sixth Amendment.
- Circumstantial evidence, including vehicle location, electronic location data, ballistics matches, ammunition matches, and the defendant’s admissions, may collectively establish a defendant’s participation in uncharged conduct beyond a reasonable doubt preponderance standard.
- Mere presence at a crime scene is insufficient to establish participation, but the aggregate weight of corroborating evidence can overcome this limitation and support application of a higher offense-level cross-reference.
- A firearm offense and a violent crime committed with the same weapon on the same day constitute relevant conduct under Guidelines § 1B1.3, even where the violent crime is not formally charged.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the established framework permitting sentencing courts to consider uncharged relevant conduct when calculating advisory Guidelines ranges—a practice that significantly impacts sentencing outcomes in federal gun cases. For prosecutors, the decision confirms that circumstantial evidence, including modern investigative tools such as location data and ballistics analysis, can satisfy the preponderance standard for proving uncharged conduct. For defense practitioners, the decision illustrates the importance of challenging factual predicates for cross-references at the preponderance level and the narrow scope of the “mere presence” defense: presence alone fails, but defense counsel may challenge the quality and sufficiency of circumstantial evidence.
The decision also forecloses constitutional challenges to the use of uncharged conduct in sentencing, citing settled Eighth Circuit and Guidelines authority. This limits appellate relief in cases where defendants face substantially higher sentences due to uncharged conduct, making trial strategy and plea negotiations critical junctures for addressing these issues before sentencing.