Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02957/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02957-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Maurice Morehead
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2957

___________

United States of America, * 

* 

Appellee, * 

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Northern District of Iowa.

Maurice Morehead, * 

* 

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 8, 2004

Filed: July 12, 2004

___________

Before MURPHY, HEANEY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

Maurice Morehead appeals his sentence, arguing that the district court erred

in relying on contested portions of his presentence investigation report ("PSR") to

deny him a minor-role adjustment to his sentence. We reverse and remand for

resentencing.

I. Background

Prior to trial, Morehead pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute

at least twenty-six grams of cocaine base. In describing Morehead's involvement, the

magistrate judge found that Morehead facilitated sales of crack cocaine. He took

Appellate Case: 03-2957 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/12/2004 Entry ID: 1786825 
-2-

orders, procured the cocaine base, and then delivered it to the people requesting the

drug. 

The probation office issued the PSR, and Morehead objected to paragraphs ten

through fifteen, which set forth the offense conduct. The offense-conduct statement

in the PSR contained information taken from the discovery file, the government's

offense-conduct statement, and police records. Morehead did not submit an offenseconduct statement.

At sentencing, the district court noted that Morehead objected to the facts

stated in the PSR. However, the court noted that Morehead agreed to the amount of

cocaine base involved but "did not necessarily agree that he . . . possessed with intent

to distribute on the specific days" noted in the discovery documents. After generally

discussing the objections to the offense-conduct statement in the PSR, the district

court stated:

The Court has received and read the presentence investigation report as

I noted. I went back over very carefully the plea colloquy between

United States Magistrate Judge John Jarvey and the defendant, and I

have gone through the file. Except for what I have observed in court,

read in the file–or read in the transcript or the presentence investigation

report, I have no other information concerning [Morehead].

The district court offered Morehead the opportunity to present additional evidence

on the issue of his level of culpability, but Morehead declined. The district court then

denied Morehead's request for a two-level minor-role reduction stating:

Well, as I read the transcript and the Court's colloquy with [Morehead],

I find there are admissions in there that indicate that not only did he take

people to get crack, but he also went and got crack and delivered it when

people asked him, and I don't think there is an adequate basis in the plea

colloquy to establish that, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he

Appellate Case: 03-2957 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/12/2004 Entry ID: 1786825 
1

 Morehead also argues that the evidence supports his entitlement to a minorrole reduction. However, because we reverse and remand for resentencing on the first

issue, we do not reach Morehead's second issue in this appeal. 

-3-

is a minor participant in the offense conduct under 3B1.2. And I include

not only the charged conduct but the relevant conduct set forth in the

Presentence Report. So the Court declines to give a role reduction

adjustment.

The district court set Morehead's base offense level at 28, and subtracted two

levels for acceptance of responsibility under United States Sentencing Guideline

("U.S.S.G.") § 3E1.1. However, the district court denied Morehead's request for a

two-level minor-role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. Morehead's final adjusted

offense level was 26, criminal history category VI, with a sentencing range of 120 to

150 months' imprisonment. The court sentenced Morehead to 120 months'

imprisonment, a four-year term of supervised release, restitution of $150, and a

mandatory special assessment of $100.

II. Analysis

In Morehead's challenge to the district court's denial of a minor-role reduction,

he argues that the district court improperly relied on the PSR to deny the adjustment.

Morehead objected to the offense conduct detailed in the PSR and consequently now

avers that the disputed PSR cannot provide the factual basis for the district court's

denial.1

 We agree. Because the district court apparently improperly referred to the

contested portions of the PSR for sentencing, we reverse and remand for

resentencing. 

We review the district court's determination of the facts relevant to a role

reduction for clear error. United States v. Alverez, 235 F.3d 1086, 1090 (8th Cir.

2000). We review the district court's grant or denial of a role reduction for an abuse

of discretion. United States v. Snoddy, 139 F.3d 1224, 1227 (8th Cir. 1998).

Appellate Case: 03-2957 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/12/2004 Entry ID: 1786825 
-4-

When a defendant disputes material facts in his PSR, the sentencing court must

either refuse to take those facts into account or hold an evidentiary hearing. United

States v. Delpit, 94 F.3d 1134, 1154 (8th Cir. 1996). This rule reflects our concern

that disputed statements in a PSR might lack the indicia of reliability and

trustworthiness required by the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard. Id. "In

making its finding, the district court is bound to do so on the basis of the evidence

and not the presentence report because the presentence report is not evidence and not

a legally sufficient basis for making findings on contested issues of fact." United

States v. Camacho, 348 F.3d 696, 700 (8th Cir. 2003) (citing United States v.

Stapleton, 268 F.3d 597, 598 (8th Cir. 2001)); see United States v. Greene, 41 F.3d

383, 386 (8th Cir. 1994) ("If the sentencing court chooses to make a finding with

respect to the disputed facts, it must do so on the basis of evidence, and not the

presentence report."). 

As noted, the district court, in denying the reduction, stated:

Well, as I read the transcript and the Court's colloquy with [Morehead],

I find there are admissions in there that indicate that not only did he take

people to get crack, but he also went and got crack and delivered it when

people asked him, and I don't think there is an adequate basis in the plea

colloquy to establish that, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he

is a minor participant in the offense conduct under 3B1.2. And I include

not only the charged conduct but the relevant conduct set forth in the

Presentence Report. So the Court declines to give a role reduction

adjustment.

(Emphasis added.) The court apparently referenced the contested conduct in the PSR

when it denied Morehead's request for a minor-role reduction, and we cannot discern

the extent to which the court relied on the PSR during sentencing. As such, we cannot

determine whether this reliance was harmless error. United States v. Arrington, 215

Appellate Case: 03-2957 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/12/2004 Entry ID: 1786825 
-5-

F.3d 855, 857 (8th Cir. 2000). Therefore, we reverse and remand for resentencing and

direct the district court to not rely on disputed portions of the PSR for factual

findings.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-2957 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/12/2004 Entry ID: 1786825