United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 09-2591
___________
United States of America, *
*
Plaintiff - Appellee, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* Western District of Missouri.
Thomas Boaz, *
*
Defendant - Appellant. *
___________
Submitted: January 15, 2010
Filed: March 15, 2010
___________
Before MELLOY, SMITH, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
___________
MELLOY, Circuit Judge.
A jury convicted Appellant Thomas Monroe Boaz of being a felon in
possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Based on prior violent
felony convictions, the district court determined that Boaz was subject to the Armed
Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), and sentenced him to 190 months'
imprisonment. In a prior appeal, we reversed and remanded because the parties had
erroneously stated to the district court that the record contained certain identifying
information as to one of the prior violent felony convictions, a 1974 Yavapai County,
Arizona conviction for brandishing a weapon other than in self-defense. United States
v. Boaz, 558 F.3d 800, 809 (8th Cir. 2009). We instructed the court on remand to
reopen the record to permit the government an opportunity to prove whether Appellant
was, in fact, the same person who was named in the 1974 Arizona conviction. Id.
On remand, the district court received evidence, determined that Appellant was
the subject of the 1974 conviction, and imposed the same 190-month sentence. The
district court's identification determination is a factual determination that we review
for clear error. See United States v. Urbina-Mejia, 450 F.3d 838, 839 (8th Cir. 2006).
A certified copy of the 1974 Arizona conviction contains no identifying
information other than the name, Thomas Monroe Boaz. Appellant contends this
omission is fatal to the government's case. He asserts that fingerprint evidence is
required to prove that he was the same Thomas Monroe Boaz who was the subject of
that conviction. We disagree.
Other evidence presented at the hearing included several subsequent records
containing ample identification evidence listing not only the name, but also
identifying characteristics such as height, weight, age, and tattoos. It is undisputed
that these subsequent records, which included fingerprint evidence as to subsequent
offenses, matched Appellant. At least one of these records contains a hearsay report
from a probation officer who represented that he supervised Appellant in relation to
probation for the 1974 offense. Another record contains a hearsay statement from
Appellant himself claiming that he was on bond out of Prescott (a city in Yavapai
County) at a time that corresponded with the period of time between arrest and
conviction for the 1974 conviction. These statements show that Appellant was the
same Thomas Monroe Boaz as listed in the 1974 conviction. Review of these records
convinces us that, despite their age, they bear sufficient indicia of reliability to permit
their use at sentencing. United States v. Sanchez-Garcia, 461 F.3d 939, 948 (8th Cir.
2006). In total, the identical names coupled with this evidence is sufficient to support
the district court's finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Appellant is the
-2-
same Thomas Monroe Boaz who was the subject of the 1974 Yavapai County,
Arizona conviction.
We affirm the judgment of the district court.
______________________________
-3-