USA v. Sadarrevin Kendrick

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Sadarrevin Kendrick. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 16-13395

Date Filed: 08/30/2017

Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-13395
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:15-cr-00009-CAR-CHW-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SADARREVIN KENDRICK,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
________________________
(August 30, 2017)
Before WILSON, MARTIN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 16-13395

Date Filed: 08/30/2017

Page: 2 of 4

Sadarrevin Kendrick appeals his 84-month sentence after pleading guilty to
one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). On appeal, Kendrick argues that the district court erred in
refusing to allow him to present hearsay evidence at his sentencing hearing, and in
applying a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice. We affirm.
I.
Kendrick’s sentence was enhanced because he was a felon in possession of a
firearm in proximity to drugs and drug paraphernalia. At sentencing, Kendrick
presented testimony by Gregory Blackman, an investigator with the Federal
Defender’s Office, who worked with Kendrick’s attorney in preparation for the
sentencing hearing. But the court did not permit Blackman to testify about the
contents of a telephone conversation he had with a person who might have
corroborated Kendrick’s explanation for having a firearm in his possession when
he was arrested. Kendrick testified that he received the gun from a kid he was
mentoring through church and that he intended to give it to his grandfather to be
sold; Blackman would testify that the kid’s mother corroborated Kendrick’s
explanation. Kendrick argues that the district court abused its discretion in
refusing to allow Blackman to testify about this conversation he had with the kid’s
mother, who was unavailable to testify herself.

2

Case: 16-13395

Date Filed: 08/30/2017

Page: 3 of 4

“[S]entencing judges exercise a wide discretion in the types of evidence they
may consider when imposing sentence,” and “highly relevant—if not essential—to
the selection of an appropriate sentence is the possession of the fullest information
possible concerning the defendant’s life and characteristics.” Pepper v. United
States, 562 U.S. 476, 480, 131 S. Ct. 1229, 1235 (2011) (internal quotation marks
omitted); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3661 (“No limitation shall be placed on the
information concerning the background, character, and conduct of a person
convicted of an offense which a court of the United States may receive and
consider for the purpose of imposing an appropriate sentence.”). The district court
did not abuse its discretion in excluding Blackman’s testimony because it did not
have sufficient indicia of reliability. The mother’s last name and address were
unknown, she was not subject to cross-examination, and the court did not find the
testimony to be credible evidence. Moreover, the sentencing court permitted
another witness who had been present for the “entire [phone] conversation” to
testify about the content of the conversation.
II.
Kendrick next argues that the district court erred in applying a two-level
enhancement for obstruction of justice under § 3C1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines.
We review for clear error a district court’s factual findings during sentencing and
review de novo the court’s application of the factual findings to the Sentencing
3

Case: 16-13395

Date Filed: 08/30/2017

Page: 4 of 4

Guidelines. United States v. Bradberry, 466 F.3d 1249, 1253 (11th Cir. 2006)
(per curiam). The district court found obstruction of justice based on Kendrick’s
conflicting testimonies about how he obtained the firearm. The government
presented testimony at the sentencing hearing that Kendrick had previously told an
officer that he bought the gun off the street, did not know the man he had bought it
from, and was planning to sell it to his cousin, all of which Kendrick either
admitted to lying about or claimed not to remember. Kendrick argues that any
inconsistency is either immaterial or reconcilable. However, the inconsistencies in
Kendrick’s statements are material—he lied about how he came to possess the
firearm, the possession for which he was convicted—and irreconcilable—he lied
about from whom and for what reason he purchased the firearm. The district court
did not err in applying the two-level enhancement.
AFFIRMED.

4