Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02069/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02069-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rudolfo Julian Martinez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

• 

FI LED 

United States Court of Appeals 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Cfro!it 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

RUDOLFO JULIAN MARTINEZ, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

NOV 3 0 1990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-2069 

(D.C. No. 89-399SC-01) 

(D. N.M.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a)~ 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

This appeal is from a sentence imposed pursuant to the 

provisions of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 and the Sentencing 

Guidelines promulgated by the Federal Sentencing Commission after 

the defendant Rudolfo Julian Martinez entered a guilty plea. On 

appeal, Martinez alleges the district court erred in failing to 

provide an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing on allegations 

in the presentence report that he disputes. We affirm the 

district court's determination not to rely on the disputed facts 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-2069 Document: 010110093881 Date Filed: 11/30/1990 Page: 1 
and remand for the attachment of this determination to the 

presentence report. 

Martinez contends the district court unlawfully relied on 

disputed facts in the sentencing report without providing an 

evidentiary hearing on those facts. Rule 32 of the Federal Rules 

of Criminal Procedure provides: 

If the comments of the defendant and the defendant's 

counsel or testimony or other information introduced by 

them allege any factual inaccuracy in the presentence 

report , the court shall, as to each matter 

controverted, make (i) a finding as to the allegation, 

or (ii) a determination that no such finding is 

necessary because the matter controverted will not be 

taken into account in sentencing. A written record of 

such findings and determinations shall be appended to 

and accompany any copy of the presentence investigation 

report thereafter made available to the Bureau of 

Prisons. 

Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(0). This rule does not require the district 

court to make a factual finding about a controverted fact in the 

sentencing report, as Martinez alleges, if the court determines 

not to take the controverted facts into account in sentencing. 

It is clear from the district court's statements he did not 

rely at all on disputed facts in imposing the sentence. However, 

we find the court did not fully satisfy the requirements of Rule 

32 by appending to the presentence report his determination not to 

rely on the disputed facts. As we have explained, this 

requirement is important because when a presentence report is used 

by the Bureau of Prisons or Parole Commission, the attachment to 

the report ensures these administrators do not mistakenly assume 

the sentencing court relied on the disputed facts. See United 

States Y.:.. Wach, 907 F.2d 1038, 1041 (10th Cir. 1990); United 

States Y..!. Corral, 823 F.2d 1389, 1394 (10th Cir. 1987). 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-2069 Document: 010110093881 Date Filed: 11/30/1990 Page: 2 
We REMAND to the district court for the purely ministerial 

task of appending its determination on the controverted facts to 

the presentence report. 

-3-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-2069 Document: 010110093881 Date Filed: 11/30/1990 Page: 3