Establishing Drug Quantity Through Anonymous Informants: Requirement of Reliability and Corroboration Post-United States v. Cripps

Introduction

United States v. Cripps (10th Cir. May 20, 2025) clarifies the limits on sentencing enhancements based on hearsay from anonymous or confidential informants. In this appeal, Matthew Cripps—who pled guilty to distributing methamphetamine—challenged a district court’s decision to raise his advisory Guidelines range from 84–105 months to 360–480 months based on unverified statements of three anonymous sources (“S1,” “S2,” and “S3”). The Tenth Circuit vacated and remanded, holding that uncorroborated out-of-court statements attributed 54 kilograms of methamphetamine to Cripps without any reliable foundation, in violation of the minimal indicia‐of‐reliability requirement under the Sentencing Guidelines and Tenth Circuit precedent.

Summary of the Judgment

The panel unanimously concluded that the district court clearly erred by relying on S3’s unsupported claim that she had shipped 54 kilograms of methamphetamine on Cripps’s behalf. Although hearsay is admissible at sentencing under Fed. R. Evid. 1101(d)(3) and U.S.S.G. §6A1.3(a), the Tenth Circuit’s precedents—most notably United States v. Ortiz—require corroboration of drug quantity estimates when based on anonymous statements. Here, S3’s massively divergent quantity estimate, without any physical or documentary corroboration, lacked the “indicia of reliability” necessary to attribute that amount to Cripps. The court therefore vacated the enhancement, remanded for de novo resentencing, and left the record open so the government could cure its proof.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

United States v. Ortiz (10th Cir. 1993): Held that uncorroborated statements of anonymous informants cannot establish drug‐quantity enhancements; reliability must be supported by independent evidence.
United States v. Ruby (10th Cir. 2013): Reaffirmed that hearsay may be used at sentencing only if premised on minimal indicia of reliability and often requires corroborating evidence.
United States v. Beaulieu (10th Cir. 1990): Upheld enhancements based on confessions corroborated by physical and documentary evidence.
United States v. Pacheco (10th Cir. 2024, unpublished): Distinguished in Cripps; there, consistent coconspirator statements and wiretap plus physical evidence supported the enhancement.

Legal Reasoning

1. Standard of Review: Factual findings as to drug quantity are reviewed for clear error. If “definite and firm conviction” arises that the district court erred, reversal is required.

2. Hearsay at Sentencing: Federal Rule of Evidence 1101(d)(3) and U.S.S.G. §6A1.3(a) allow hearsay if it bears sufficient indicia of reliability. In drug cases, quantity findings demand stronger corroboration because they determine significant increases in imprisonment.

3. Corroboration Requirement: Ortiz teaches that anonymous informant tips showing only general involvement do not suffice for drug‐quantity attribution. To satisfy the Guidelines’ reliability threshold, a district court must point to physical seizure, documentary records, recorded conversations, or other independent means that confirm the specific amounts claimed.

4. Application to S3’s Statements: S3 claimed trips transporting two kilograms of methamphetamine two to three times weekly for eleven weeks and once ten kilograms in a single run. This was a 1,000-fold departure from the 20–80 gram transactions S1 and S2 described. Without any external corroboration—no phone records, no intercepted communications, no recovered ledgers—the panel held the district court’s reliance on that claim clearly erroneous.

5. Remand Scope: Although resentencing is ordinarily de novo, appellate courts may limit the record if the government (“1”) bore the burden of proof, (“2”) was put on notice of deficiencies, and (“3”) took no steps to cure them. Here the government did call a sentencing witness (Agent Tucker) to attempt to shore up reliability, so the Tenth Circuit declined to close the record and permitted a full de novo resentencing to allow any further corroborating evidence.

Impact

Reinforces that sentencing courts must treat informant testimony cautiously and demand independent verification of large-scale drug quantities.
Extends Ortiz’s control over sentencing enhancements, reducing reliance on anonymous hearsay as a shortcut to higher Guidelines ranges.
Signals to prosecutors the necessity of building a solid evidentiary foundation—wiretap logs, phone records, financial records, seized shipments—before seeking quantity enhancements.
Guides defense practice: timely and specific objections to reliability can force the government either to produce corroboration or to risk losing an enhancement on appeal.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Hearsay: Any out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Normally barred at trial, but admissible at sentencing if sufficiently reliable.
Indicia of Reliability: Clues that a statement is probably accurate, such as consistency with physical evidence, documented records, or direct admissions.
Preponderance of the Evidence: The government’s burden at sentencing—proof that it is more likely than not that the claimed drug quantities are attributable to the defendant.
Clear Error Review: A deferential appellate standard requiring reversal only if the court is “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.”
De Novo Resentencing: When a case is remanded, the court may reconsider all factual and legal issues from scratch, as if the first sentencing had not occurred.

Conclusion

United States v. Cripps underscores the Tenth Circuit’s insistence on reliable, corroborated evidence to establish drug quantities at sentencing. The judgment reinstates Ortiz’s warning against inflated enhancements based solely on unverified informant claims. By vacating Cripps’s enhanced sentence and remanding for de novo resentencing—with the record left open—the panel balances the government’s burden to prove drug quantity and the need to prevent speculative or inflated sentencing adjustments. Going forward, both prosecution and defense must attend carefully to the evidentiary underpinnings of any hearsay‐based claims in the sentencing context.