Fourth Circuit Clarifies Reliance on Reliable Hearsay for the §2K2.1(b)(6)(B) Enhancement

United States v. Patrick Hilkah McManus, No. 23-4278 (4th Cir. July 10, 2025) – Unpublished but persuasive authority

Introduction

Patrick Hilkah McManus, a convicted felon, pleaded guilty in the Western District of North Carolina to possessing a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). At sentencing the district court applied the four-level enhancement in U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (USSG) § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) after finding that McManus used the firearm “in connection with” an armed robbery committed roughly fifteen hours earlier. The court imposed a 96-month sentence—well within the 84- to 105-month advisory range.

On appeal McManus raised two primary issues:

The district court allegedly erred in applying the § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement because the Government relied on uncorroborated hearsay to link him to the robbery.
The court failed to address his non-frivolous claim that extensive rehabilitative efforts while in custody justified a lower sentence.

A Fourth Circuit panel (Chief Judge Gregory and Judges Wynn & Quattlebaum) affirmed. Although unpublished and therefore non-binding, the opinion significantly clarifies two matters that surface regularly in federal sentencing:

The minimal evidentiary threshold—“preponderance of the evidence”—for the § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement, and the permissibility of relying on hearsay that bears “sufficient indicia of reliability.”
The scope of a district court’s obligation to address a defendant’s mitigation arguments on the record.

Summary of the Judgment

1. Application of § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B): The panel held that the district court did not clearly err in finding McManus possessed the firearm “in connection with” a North Carolina armed-robbery felony. The key facts were found “plausible” given a police report, photo-array identification, surveillance-video descriptions, and an officer’s testimony. All materials—though containing hearsay—were admissible for sentencing because they were sufficiently reliable.

2. Sentencing Explanation: The district court’s explanation, taken in context, showed that it considered and rejected McManus’s rehabilitation argument, fulfilling the court’s duty to provide an individualized assessment under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the 96-month sentence.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

The opinion draws heavily on a line of Fourth Circuit cases that together articulate three intertwined standards:

Standard of Appellate Review – United States v. McCabe, 103 F.4th 259 (4th Cir. 2024) (abuse-of-discretion for overall sentence); Freitekh, 114 F.4th 292 (4th Cir. 2024) (factual findings – clear error; legal conclusions – de novo).
“In Connection With” Test – United States v. McDonald, 28 F.4th 553 (4th Cir. 2022) (firearm must have “some purpose or effect” regarding the other felony); Kobito, 994 F.3d 696 (4th Cir. 2021) (government’s burden is preponderance).
Use of Hearsay & Reliability – Mondragon, 860 F.3d 227 (4th Cir. 2017) (uncorroborated hearsay permissible if reliable).
District-Court Explanation Duty – Lewis, 958 F.3d 240 (4th Cir. 2020); Fowler, 58 F.4th 142 (4th Cir. 2023); Lozano, 962 F.3d 773 (4th Cir. 2020); Powers, 40 F.4th 129 (4th Cir. 2022).

These authorities collectively shaped the panel’s approach: highly deferential to the district court’s fact-finding, tolerant of reliable hearsay, and flexible on how explicitly the judge must respond to mitigation arguments.

2. Legal Reasoning

Clear-Error Review of Facts. Citing Barnett, the panel reiterated that reversal is appropriate only when the appellate court holds a “definite and firm conviction” that a mistake occurred. Because multiple pieces of evidence tied McManus to the robbery, plausible reliance on each defeated any clear-error claim.
Reliability of Hearsay. Following Mondragon, the court emphasized that sentencing courts are not bound by the Federal Rules of Evidence and may credit hearsay so long as it is reliable. Here, reliability stemmed from: (i) consistency among the victim, report author, and testifying officer; (ii) surveillance corroboration; and (iii) temporal proximity between the robbery and firearm possession.
Low Evidentiary Threshold. The Government’s burden was “more likely than not,” the lowest civil-style standard. The presence of the weapon during the robbery plausibly “emboldened” the crime—easily meeting the McDonald gloss on “in connection with.”
Sentencing Explanation. Applying Lozano and Powers, the panel held that a court need not parse each subsidiary mitigation point once it has addressed the defendant’s “central thesis.” By rejecting McManus’s claim that his rehabilitation outweighed his danger to the community, the district court satisfied its § 3553(c) duty.

3. Impact on Future Litigation

Though unpublished, the decision nevertheless serves as persuasive authority within the Fourth Circuit and guidance elsewhere. Its practical consequences include:

Defense Strategy: Counsel must be prepared to attack the reliability of hearsay rather than its admissibility. Conclusory objections will be insufficient.
Government Proof: Prosecutors may feel fortified in relying on police reports, surveillance descriptions, and victim statements without live testimony, provided corroborative details exist.
District-Court Sentencing Procedures: Judges obtain reassurance that succinct, context-rich explanations can survive appeal so long as they tackle the defendant’s primary mitigation themes.
§ 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) Application: The panel’s application underscores that even hours-old felony activity can qualify as “another felony offense,” broadening the enhancement’s reach.
Hearsay in Federal Sentencing: By re-affirming Mondragon, the court signals enduring tolerance toward hearsay despite developing Confrontation Clause jurisprudence, because the Sixth Amendment does not apply at sentencing.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Clear-Error Standard: The appellate court overturns only if it is firmly convinced the trial judge got the facts wrong. If the judge’s view is merely one of several plausible interpretations, the findings stand.
Preponderance of the Evidence: Means “more likely than not.” In numbers, think 51% certainty—not “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) Enhancement: Adds four offense levels (roughly 12–18 months in prison for many defendants) when a gun offense is intertwined with another felony, making the conduct more dangerous.
“In Connection With”: The firearm must have facilitated or had some purpose in relation to the other felony (e.g., providing protection, intimidation, or leverage during the crime).
Hearsay with “Indicia of Reliability”: Statements made outside of court can be considered if corroborated by other evidence or circumstances indicating trustworthiness.
Individualized Assessment: Under § 3553(a), sentencing judges must tailor the sentence to the defendant and must consider arguments presented—but do not need to write a treatise on every point.

Conclusion

United States v. McManus reinforces two pragmatic realities of federal sentencing practice: (1) the low bar for proving the “in connection with” firearm enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B); and (2) the wide berth afforded district judges in articulating their reasoning, provided they grapple with the defendant’s core arguments. By blessing reliance on corroborated hearsay and emphasizing deferential appellate review, the Fourth Circuit effectively preserves district-court flexibility at the sentencing stage. Defense counsel confronting similar enhancements must therefore marshal contrary evidence and attack the reliability of the Government’s proofs early, while prosecutors and courts can rely on this opinion to streamline evidentiary presentations and written explanations. In the broader legal context, the decision exemplifies the Guidelines era’s continuing tension between accuracy, efficiency, and due-process protections—but decidedly leans toward efficiency when reliability is deemed adequate.