Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-04136/USCOURTS-ca10-90-04136-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kevin L. Hoffman
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

, ORITBD STATES COURT OF .APPEALS 

FOR THE Dlffll CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. No. 90-4136 

FILED 

United States C.ourc of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

MAR 14 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

KEVIN L. HOFFMAN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

(D. C. No. 86-CR-146-12) 

(D. Utah) 

ORDER DD JUDGIIBNT* 

Before DDBRSOR, TACBA, 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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

In 1987, Mr. Hoffman was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to 

distribute cocaine (21 u.s.c. S 841 and S 846) and aiding and 

abetting an interstate travel or transportation in aid of 

* 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 estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-4136 Document: 010110031088 Date Filed: 03/14/1991 Page: 1 
' racketeering enterprise (18 u.s.c. S 2 and S 1952). Mr. Hoffman 

appealed these convictions and we affirmed. See United States v. 

Hoffman, 877 F.2d 831 (10th Cir. 1989). 

In November 1989, Mr. Hoffman filed a motion pursuant to Fed. 

R. Crim. P. 35(a) and (b) for correction of an illegal sentence. 

The district court denied this motion and Mr. Hoffman appeals pro 

se. 

At the original sentencing hearing in April 1987, Mr. 

Hoffman's counsel made objection regarding certain specified 

inaccuracies in the presentence report. Specifically, the 

accuracy of the following were challenged: The mention of the 

presence of cocaine in the report of a previous arrest; a 

statement referring to Mr. Hoffman as a major supplier; and 

statements linking Mr. Hoffman to certain quantities of cocaine 

involved in the conspiracy. The court then heard statements by 

Mr. Hoffman and the United States and without comment sentenced 

Mr. Hoffman to seven years on the conspiracy charge and five years 

probation on the aiding and abetting charge. This was not raised 

during the direct appeal and the United States makes no complaint 

concerning Mr. Hoffman's failure to raise this issue. 

Federal R. Crim. P. 32(c)(3)(D) provides that if the factual 

accuracy of a presentence report is challenged by a defendant or 

his counsel the district court must either make a finding as to 

the allegation or make a determination that no such finding is 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-4136 Document: 010110031088 Date Filed: 03/14/1991 Page: 2 
necessary as the controverted matter will not be taken into 

account by the sentencing court. This was not done in the case 

before us nor were any findings attached as required by the rule. 

Moreover, both parties agree the requirements of the rule were not 

followed. See, Appellant's Brief at 5-6; Appellee's Brief at 2-3. 

Where a sentencing court fails to make either a finding 

concerning a disputed fact or a statement that it was not relying 

upon these facts, the case must be remanded. United States v. 

Alvarado, 909 F.2d 1443, 1444-45 (10th Cir. 1990). While the 

failure of the sentencing court to comply with the requirements of 

Rule 32 requires a remand, not every violation requires 

resentencing. United States v. Gattas, 862 F.2d 1432, 1435 (10th 

Cir. 1988) (sentence need not be vacated where Rule 32(c)(3)(D) 

violation only concerns district court's failure to perform 

ministerial task of attaching proper record to presentence 

report). However, in the instant case it does not appear from the 

record that the sentencing court used the sentencing hearing as an 

opportunity to check accuracy or correct possible misinformation 

that could have been relevant in determining the length of Mr. 

Hoffman's sentence. 

We therefore VACATE the sentence and REMAND to the district 

court for the purpose of resentencing Mr. Hoffman. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-4136 Document: 010110031088 Date Filed: 03/14/1991 Page: 3