United States v. Roache

U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Filed 2026-03-30 No. 25-1157
Aizavier Roache was sentenced to 57 months for conspiring to traffic firearms under 18 U.S.C. § 933(a)(1), (3) after he pleaded guilty to arranging six firearm purchases in 2023 via his co-conspirator Travon Brunson, a South Carolina resident. The district court applied a six-level Guidelines enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1) based on statements Brunson made to ATF agents in 2021 asserting he had bought twenty-four earlier firearms for Roache. On appeal, Roache challenged the reliability of Brunson's 2021 statements as unsworn, uncorroborated double hearsay. The First Circuit affirmed. Under the preponderance standard that applies to contested sentencing facts, a district court has broad discretion to credit out-of-court statements bearing sufficient indicia of reliability. Here the district court properly relied on (1) recovery in Massachusetts of fifteen firearms Brunson had purchased in South Carolina, (2) the detailed and non-conclusory nature of Brunson's 2021 account, and (3) the fact that the 2023 transactions — independently documented — matched the pattern Brunson described in 2021. Partial disbelief of Brunson on ancillary points (his claim he only dealt with Roache; his claim he made no profit) did not undermine the reliability finding on the core narrative.

Summary

Aizavier Roache was sentenced to 57 months for conspiring to traffic firearms under 18 U.S.C. § 933(a)(1), (3) after he pleaded guilty to arranging six firearm purchases in 2023 via his co-conspirator Travon Brunson, a South Carolina resident. The district court applied a six-level Guidelines enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1) based on statements Brunson made to ATF agents in 2021 asserting he had bought twenty-four earlier firearms for Roache. On appeal, Roache challenged the reliability of Brunson's 2021 statements as unsworn, uncorroborated double hearsay. The First Circuit affirmed. Under the preponderance standard that applies to contested sentencing facts, a district court has broad discretion to credit out-of-court statements bearing sufficient indicia of reliability. Here the district court properly relied on (1) recovery in Massachusetts of fifteen firearms Brunson had purchased in South Carolina, (2) the detailed and non-conclusory nature of Brunson's 2021 account, and (3) the fact that the 2023 transactions — independently documented — matched the pattern Brunson described in 2021. Partial disbelief of Brunson on ancillary points (his claim he only dealt with Roache; his claim he made no profit) did not undermine the reliability finding on the core narrative.

Structured facts

Parties
Petitioner/Appellant: Aizavier Roache (defendant-appellant)
Respondent/Appellee: United States
Jurisdiction
federal — First Circuit on appeal from the District of Massachusetts
Statutes cited
18 U.S.C. § 933(a)(1), (3) (firearms trafficking), U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1) (firearm-count enhancement), 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (sentencing factors), Fed. R. Crim. P. 32 (sentencing procedure)
Issue
Whether the district court abused its discretion by finding a co-conspirator's 2021 ATF-interview statements sufficiently reliable to support a six-level Guidelines enhancement based on uncharged prior firearm purchases.
Holding
No. Brunson's 2021 statements carried sufficient indicia of reliability — corroborating recovered firearms in Massachusetts, detailed and non-conclusory account, and a matching 2023 transaction pattern — to meet the preponderance standard.
Outcome
affirmed
Vote
unanimous panel (Aframe, Howard, Dunlap)
Majority author
Judge Dunlap

Key facts

Reasoning

At sentencing a district court may consider information outside the Rules of Evidence so long as it has sufficient indicia of reliability, and contested facts need only be proved by a preponderance (Rondón-García). Brunson's 2021 account was detailed, matched the contemporaneously documented 2023 pattern, and was supported by recovery of fifteen of his South Carolina-purchased firearms in Massachusetts crimes. The district court properly acknowledged it was a 'close' call but did not abuse its discretion. Partial disbelief on ancillary details (Brunson's claimed exclusivity and lack of profit) did not require rejection of the core narrative under Forbes, because the court explained which parts it credited and why.

Implications

The decision reinforces the deferential reliability standard for sentencing facts in the First Circuit and gives federal prosecutors a usable template for securing firearm-count enhancements when the only evidence of pre-charge conduct is a co-conspirator's prior statement. It also illustrates the pattern-corroboration theory — later documented conduct can retroactively bolster the reliability of earlier uncharged conduct. For defense counsel, the opinion underscores how difficult it is to overturn reliability findings on appeal when the district court shows its work and partially credits the witness; attacking ancillary credibility points is unlikely to dislodge the core narrative. The opinion also highlights the First Circuit's recent recognition that its standard-of-review framing has been inconsistent — Goncalves (2024) — and carefully avoids adopting a sharper split.

Related cases

Practical guide

For federal defense counsel in firearms trafficking sentencings: (1) develop pre-sentencing corroboration arguments that focus on internal contradictions in the key witness's account, not just lack of documentary backup; (2) request findings on each fact the court credits, so a record exists for appeal; (3) consider cross-cutting evidence the government did not produce (phone records, bank records) and ask the court to address its absence on the record. For AUSAs: build a pattern argument — show later documented conduct matches the earlier uncharged pattern — and memorialize the agent's initial suspicions and investigative leads in court filings. For district judges: when partially crediting a cooperating witness, explain on the record which parts are credited and which are not (Forbes); a close-call determination should be explicit. For firearms-trafficking compliance in South Carolina gun shops: Form 4473 straw-purchase attestations remain a primary enforcement lever; document ID and purpose questions carefully.

FAQ

What is the preponderance standard at sentencing?

Contested facts at sentencing — including uncharged conduct — need only be proved by more likely than not, not beyond a reasonable doubt. Hearsay evidence can satisfy this standard if it carries sufficient indicia of reliability.

Can a court rely on a cooperating witness's interview notes even if the witness isn't cross-examined?

Yes. The Rules of Evidence and Sixth Amendment confrontation rights do not apply at sentencing. What matters is whether the statement is supported by corroborative evidence, internal consistency, detail, and a plausible narrative.

What could Roache have done differently on appeal?

The opinion implicitly highlights two angles: (1) attacking specific internal inconsistencies in Brunson's 2021 account beyond the ancillary points, and (2) raising the obstruction argument about Brunson's deleted text messages below rather than for the first time on appeal.

This is not legal advice. This is analysis of publicly published court opinions. Source: CourtListener. Consult a licensed attorney for advice about your specific situation.