United States v. Grady: Clarifying “Minimal Indicia of Reliability” and the Sliding-Scale Test for Relevant Conduct under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B)

Introduction

In United States v. Zacquon D. Grady, the Sixth Circuit confronted two recurring issues in federal firearms sentencing:

When may a sentencing court rely on a victim’s unsworn, out-of-court statement to apply the four-level enhancement for use or possession of a firearm “in connection with another felony offence” under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B)?
How should a court decide whether the separate felony constitutes “relevant conduct” under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3?

The appellant, Zacquon Grady, pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court imposed an 84-month, bottom-of-the-Guidelines sentence after finding that Grady used the gun to “pistol-whip” his girlfriend two weeks earlier—conduct amounting to aggravated assault under Tennessee law. On appeal, Grady challenged both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of that sentence, chiefly attacking (i) the reliability of the girlfriend’s body-camera statement and (ii) the court’s “relevant conduct” analysis.

Summary of the Judgment

Writing for a unanimous panel, Judge Davis affirmed. The court held:

The girlfriend’s body-camera statement cleared the “minimal indicia of reliability” threshold, allowing the district court to credit it over Grady’s sworn denial.
The alleged pistol-whipping satisfied § 1B1.3’s “same course of conduct / common scheme or plan” requirement: strong similarity and temporal proximity outweighed any uncertainty about regularity under the Sixth Circuit’s sliding-scale approach.
The district court adequately addressed Grady’s mitigation arguments, and the within-Guidelines (bottom-range) sentence was substantively reasonable.

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

United States v. Hamad, 495 F.3d 241 (6th Cir. 2007) & United States v. Silverman, 976 F.2d 1502 (en banc) — established that sentencing evidence need only possess “some minimal indicia of reliability.” Grady relies on Hamad to argue the standard was unmet; the panel reiterates its “relatively low hurdle” language.
United States v. Phillips, 516 F.3d 479 (6th Cir. 2008) — set the three-factor test (similarity, regularity, temporal proximity) for “same course of conduct”; the court imports that test verbatim.
United States v. Bowens, 938 F.3d 790 (6th Cir. 2019) — endorsed the sliding-scale notion that strong similarity and closeness in time may compensate for lack of regularity; Bowens guides the panel’s conclusion here.
United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382 (en banc) & Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) — underpin the court’s rejection of the procedural-explanation challenge.
United States v. Rayyan, 885 F.3d 436 (6th Cir. 2018) — defines substantive-reasonableness review; applied to uphold the sentence.

B. Legal Reasoning Explained

Reliability of Victim Statement
The court stressed several corroborating indicators:
• Statement given during a structured “lethality interview” recorded on body-cam.
• Victim immediately directed police to the very firearm later recovered.
• Visible, fresh injuries on the victim consistent with recent violence.
• Grady’s history of domestic violence against the same victim, documented in the PSR.
Together these satisfied the “minimal indicia of reliability” requirement; live testimony was unnecessary.
Relevant Conduct Analysis
Applying Phillips and the sliding-scale approach:
• Similarity: Both events involved the same gun, same victim, same residence.
• Temporal proximity: Only “a couple of weeks” separated them.
• Regularity: Less evident, but the first two factors were strong; under Bowens, that suffices.
Therefore the pistol-whipping qualified as conduct “part of a single episode, spree, or ongoing series.”
Balancing the § 3553(a) Factors
The district court explicitly considered: childhood trauma, drug abuse, deterrence, protection of the public, criminal history, and the need for respect for the law. By landing at the bottom of the calculated range, it showed mitigation had an effect, foreclosing a finding of substantive unreasonableness.

C. Potential Impact of the Decision

Evidentiary Flexibility at Sentencing: The decision re-affirms that body-camera statements, even without live witnesses, can justify significant Guideline enhancements so long as minimal corroboration exists.
Reinforcement of Sliding-Scale Framework: By relying heavily on similarity and timing while discounting “regularity,” the opinion gives prosecutors and probation offices clearer guidance for tying prior violent conduct to a § 922(g) conviction.
Domestic Violence Context: The case underscores the Sentencing Commission’s goal of punishing firearm possession intertwined with domestic abuse more severely; future defendants may find it harder to sever domestic-violence episodes from the firearm offense.
Standard-of-Review Clarification Left Open: Although the panel sidestepped choosing between de novo or deferential review for “relevant conduct” determinations, its “either way we affirm” language signals that, in practice, the outcome may rarely change.

Complex Concepts Simplified

U.S.S.G.: The United States Sentencing Guidelines—advisory rules that offer federal judges a recommended sentencing range based on offense characteristics and criminal history.
§ 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) Enhancement: Adds four offense levels when a defendant “used or possessed” a firearm “in connection with another felony offense.” It can sharply increase prison time.
Relevant Conduct (§ 1B1.3): A Guideline concept that allows courts to consider uncharged or even acquitted conduct if it is sufficiently related to the offense of conviction.
Minimal Indicia of Reliability: The low evidentiary threshold that must be met before a sentencing judge may rely on hearsay or other non-trial-quality evidence.
Sliding-Scale Test (Similarity–Regularity–Proximity): A flexible method: strong proof on two of the three factors may compensate for weakness in the third when deciding whether two acts form the “same course of conduct.”

Conclusion

United States v. Grady adds important gloss to Sixth Circuit sentencing jurisprudence. By endorsing the use of victim body-camera statements and clarifying how courts should weigh similarity and timing in the relevant-conduct calculus, the decision:

Affirms the continued vitality—and low bar—of the “minimal indicia of reliability” standard;
Strengthens prosecutors’ ability to link domestic-violence incidents to firearm possession under § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B);
Signals that a detailed, point-by-point discussion of § 3553(a) factors is unnecessary when the record shows genuine consideration; and
Maintains a robust presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences.

Practitioners should note that even short time gaps coupled with a single corroborated victim statement may suffice to transform a “mine-run” § 922(g) case into an enhanced-penalty scenario. Conversely, defendants must be prepared with stronger rebuttal evidence or risk sizeable sentencing increases approved on appeal.