United States of America v. Patrick Hershal Stiller

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
JC/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PATRICK HERSHAL STILLER,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 08-30465
D.C. No. 2:07-cr-00259-RHW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
Robert H. Whaley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Patrick Hershal Stiller appeals from the 60-month sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for sexual abuse of a minor, in violation of
18 U.S.C. §§ 2243(a) and 1153. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
FILED
JAN 06 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JC/Research 08-30465 2
§ 1291, and we affirm.
Stiller contends the district court erred by enhancing his sentence based on a
finding that the crime involved force, even though this fact was not an element of
the crime and was not admitted by Stiller. A preponderance of the evidence
supports the district court’s finding. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a); see also United
States v. Dare, 425 F.3d 634, 635-36 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that defendant’s
mandatory minimum sentence imposed through judicial factfinding utilizing a
preponderance of the evidence standard did not violate the Sixth Amendment).
Stiller also contends that the consideration at sentencing of statements by the
victim, witnesses, and medical personnel violated his Sixth Amendment right to
confront witnesses. Because the statements bore sufficient indicia of reliability,
this contention fails. See United States v. Ingham, 486 F.3d 1068, 1076 (9th Cir.
2007); see also United States v. Littlesun, 444 F.3d 1196, 1200 (9th Cir. 2006)
(stating that federal law is clear that a judge may consider hearsay information in
sentencing a defendant).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --