NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 11a0173n.06 No. 09-6223 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. RONAL D W. BARTL ETT, De fe nd a nt- Ap pe lla

nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P E AL F ROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT C O U R T F O R

T H E M ID D LE DI STRI CT OF TEN

NESSEE

B EF OR E: CO L E, GI B B ON S, a nd RO GE RS, C ir c uit

Judg e s. R O G E R S , C i r c u i tJ u d g e . R o n a l d B a rt l e t ta p p e a l s h i s 1 5 1

- m o n t h s e n t e n c e f o r b a n k r o b b e r y, challeng ing the district c ourt’s resolution of sever al matters r elating to alleg ations in the prese ntence repor t that Ba rtlett sexually abused his daug hter. Ba rtlett claims that the court ref used t o (1) r

ule on the disputed alleg ations, (2) strike the se alleg ations from the PSR, and (3) append its finding s to the repor t. The district court proper ly decide d not to r ule on the matter , and wa s not require d to strike the alleg ations. On issuance of t h e m an d at e, however, the district court should ensure —pursuant to Criminal Rule 32—that its determination that it was unable to resolve the a lleg ations is either inc lud e d in , o r atta c he d to , th e PSR. Ba rtlett pled g uilty

to one count of bank robber y in June 2009. The probation office pr epar ed a pre sentenc e repor

t, to which Ba

rtlett filed two objec tions. He first objecte d to his criminal history calc ulation, an objection he later withdre w at the sentenc ing hear ing. Ba rtlett also objected to theNo. 09-6223

Un ite d S tat es v . B ar tle tt

- 2 - fac t that the repor

t s t at ed t hat his ex-wife ac cused him of se x ually abusing their daug hter. He claimed ne ver to have abuse d their daug hter, a nd asked the court to excise the alleg ati on under Criminal Rule 32(d)( 3)(C), which require s district c ourts to remove infor mation from a pr esente nce repor t that “might r esult in phy sical or other harm to the de fenda

nt.” The district cour

t held a se n t encinghear ing in Septembe r 2009. To re solve the sec ond objection, the cour

t hear d testimony

from B artlett, B artlett’s fia ncée , and B artlett’s probatio n o f f icer

. The c ourt also re view ed d o cu m en ts from the Rape a nd Sex ual Abuse Cente r in Nashville, Tenne ssee, whe re B artlett’s da ug hter re ceive d counseling for sex ual abuse . After revie wing all the evidenc e, the court conclude d that it wa s “unable to r esolve whether the . . . alleg ations are true or fa lse .” R. 5 2 at 34 . A s a

c omp ro mis e , th e c ourt

“ or de r[e d] th a t th e pr e se nte nc e re po rt be re vis e d to ind ic a te that Mr . B a rt le tt d e nie s tha t he sex ual ly a bu se d h is d a

ug hte r a nd the Court

is una ble to resolve whether the repor ted alleg ations are true or f alse.” Id. Th e c ourt

the n s e nte nc e d B a rt le tt t o 151 months in prison, at the bottom of his g uidelines rang e. T h e P S R that we have been supplied on a ppeal, howe ver, state s only that the “de fenda

nt de nies that he se xua lly

a bu se d h is d a

ug hte r. ” I t do e s n ot s ta te tha t th e dis tr ic t c ourt

wa s una ble resolve w hether

the alleg ations are true or f alse, a nd Ba rtlett contends that the c ourt’s ruling has not be e n atta c he d to the PSR. Bartl ett ra ise s th re e c ha lle ng e s to his se nte nc e un de r C ri min a l Ru le 32 . B a rt le tt’ s f ir st purp or te d e rro r is that th e dis tr ic t c ourt fa ile d to re so lve wh e the r h e ha d s e xua lly a bu se d h is daug hter. The court, however, stated that it would not consider the disputed alleg ations in reac hingNo. 09-6223

Un ite d S tat es v . B ar tle tt

- 3 - a se nte nc e , o bv ia tin g t he n e e d f or a fa c tua l f ind ingun de r C ri min a l Ru le 32 . Ru le 32 re qu ir e s a distr i ct co u rt to “rule on the dispute or deter mine that a ruling is unnece ssary” “f or any disputed portion of the pre sentenc e re port.” F ed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(3)(B ) (e mphasis added)

. The district cour t opted for the latter c ourse—a deter mination that a ruling one wa y o r an o t h er was unne cessa ry be c a us e the c ourt

wa s “ no t g oin g to take it int o a c c ount in te rm s of se nte nc ing .” R. 5 2 at 35 . T his is precise ly

what Rule 32 allows district cour ts to do: “determine that a ru l i n g is unnece ssary . . . beca use the c ourt will not consider the matter in sentencing .” F ed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(3)(B ). Ba rtlett next challeng es t he dis trict court’s decision not to strike from the PS R the fac t that his e x-w if

e a lle g e d th a t he ha d se xua lly a bu se d the ir da

ug hte r. I n r e sp on se to B a rt le tt’ s r e qu e st t o
e xcis e the se pa

rt ic ula rs fr om the re po rt , the dis tr ic t c ourt mod if ie d the re po rt

to i nd ic a te that B a rt le tt dis pu te d th e re le va

nt a lle g a tio ns . T his c ours e of ac ti on was wi thi n th e c ourt ’s dis c re tio n b e c a us e B art le tt h a s p ro vid e d n oth ingbe y on d h is o wn state me nt t

hat he wi ll b e a dv e rs e ly

a ff e c te d b y the PSR

a s it no w s tand s. Cr imi na l Ru le 32 pr ov ide s: The prese ntence repor

t must ex clude . . . a

ny other infor

mation that, if disclosed, mig ht r e su lt i n p hy sic a l or oth e r h a rm

to t he de fe nd a nt o r o the rs . Fe d. R. Crim. P. 32(d)( 3)(C). Ba rtlett maintains that the court should have re moved the alleg ations that he sexually

abused his daug hter, be cause those alleg ations could “r esult in harm to him” from “prison employ ees or

other inmates.” Appellant B r. at 12. Criminal Rul e 32(d) (3)( C) does not requir e the a utomatic exclusion of any unproved alleg ations of s exual abuse. The claim that any alleg ation of sex ual abuse will result in harm to the

acc used, without more, is too speculative to f all within the Rule’s direc tive to exclude informationNo. 09-6223

Un ite d S tat es v . B ar tle tt

- 4 - that “ mig ht c a

us e ph y sic a l or

oth e r h a rm

to t he de fe nd a nt.” Th e e xclu sio n a pp e a rs to a

pp ly to proven a s well as unprove n alleg ations, so that if all alleg ations of sexual miscondu ct m ust be excluded, a PSR sent to t he B urea u of P risons could never i nclude the underlying f acts or c onduct of se xua lly ba se d o ff e ns e s. Th is wo uld be a n a no ma lou s re su lt. I n a ny e ve nt, a s it sta nd s, the PSR in this case does not say that the allegations are true. Thus, to the extent that allegations of sex ual abuse pose any

dang er to B artlett (a

speculation he does not eve n attempt to support), t h at dang er is obviously diminis hed by the report’s indication that the alleg ations are just that—alleg ations that

are un pr ov e n a nd dis pu te d. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt the re fo re did

no t a bu se its dis c re tio n, or

make a c le a rl y
err oneous dete rmination of fa ct, in declining to find the possibili ty of “phy sical or other

harm to the defe ndant.” Rule 32(d)(3) (C)’s dire ctive also must be re ad in lig ht of other provisions which r equire the PSR to in c lu d e “ c ir c u

ms ta nces a ffe cting the def

endant’ s behavior,” Fe d. R. Crim. P . 32(d)( 2)(A) (iii), and “a ny other infor

mation that the court re quire s , in c ludinginformation re levant to the fa ctors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a),” Fe d. R. Crim. P. 32(d)( 2)(F ). Whether or not they are true, the a lleg ations of sexual abuse are part of B artlett’s “ history and cha rac teristics.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) . As the distric t c o u rt n o te d , th e s e a ll e g a ti o n s a r e p a rt o f “ th e p e r s o n a l a n d f a mi ly d a ta th a t n e e d s to be provided in the pre sentenc e report.” R. 52 at 35. Indeed, a lthough it might be g oing too f ar to say that Rule 32(d)( 2)(F ) require s that alleg ations of sexual a buse be included in a

defe ndant’s PSR, t he Rule cer tainly sug g ests that such alleg ations may be included.No. 09-6223

Un ite d S tat es v . B ar tle tt

- 5 - We have r eviewe d compliance with many aspec ts of Rule 32 for a

buse of discr etion. See, e.g ., United States v. LeBlanc , 7 62 F .2 d 5 02 , 5 05 (6 th C ir . 1 98 5) ; see also United States v . Graham , 67 F .3 d 3 00 , N o. 94 -4 31 2, 19 95 WL57 09 05 (6 th C ir . Se pt. 27 , 19 95 ). Th is i s b e c a us e dis tr ic t c ourt s
are better positioned to assess many of the re levant determ i n at ions under Criminal Rule 32. Cf. Un ite d S tat es v . S mi th , 1 01 F .3 d 202 , 217 (1 st Cir . 199 6)

. An d this is p a rt ic ula rl y tr ue wh e re , a s in thi s c a se , th e de te rm inatio n is a bo ut t he po te nti a l ha

rm to a de fe nd a nt. Suc h a

de te rm inatio n w ill

nece ssarily

turn on a sensiti v e asse ssment of the def endant’ s history

and mental state . Her e, the d i s t r i c tc o u rt ’ s r e l a t i v e f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h s e n t e n c i n g an d

o t h e r f a c t
- b o u n d , c o n t e xt
- s p e c if ic

c ir c ums tanc e s pu ts the se nte nc ing jud g e in a po sit ion of c omp a ra tiv e a dv a nta g e ov e r an ap pell a te court de aling with a limited recor d. Ba rtlett’s relianc e on Un ite d St ate s v . Ca pa ne lli , N o . 0 1 CR
. 1 1 2 1 ( CS H ) , 2 0 0 3 WL 23018794, at *1 (S.D.N.Y D ec. 23, 2 003), is there fore misplaced. In Cap an e lli , the district court made a particula rized finding ( in response to the de fenda nt’s motion) that unsuppor ted alleg ations of the de fe nd a nt’ s a sso c ia tio n wi th a n or g a nize d c ri me fa mil y mig ht r e su lt i n h a rm

to t he de fe nd a nt. The sente ncing judge deter mined t h at these a lleg ations should be excised from the pre sentenc e
re port. Id. a t * 2
. Su c h a f in d in g w a s c e rta in ly w it

h in th e s e n te n c in g ju d g e ’ s d is c r e ti on. But the question here is not whet h er t h e dis trict court ha d latitude to strike these a lleg ations, but rather whether it was reve rsible er

ror not to s tr ike the m. This is not a case wher e the sentenc ing judge flatly reje cted the defe ndant’s objec tion. The dis tr ic t c ourt

too k a ste p to wa rd min imi zingany po te nti a l ha rm to B a rt le tt b y

or de ri ngthat th e PSRNo. 09-6223

Un ite d S tat es v . B ar tle tt

- 6 - be a me nd e d to ind ic a te (1 ) t hat th e a lle g a tio ns a re dis pu te d, a nd (2 ) t hat th e c ourt wa s una

ble to resolve the dispute. The modified r eport say s that Ba rtlett’s ex-wife a lleg ed that he se x ually abused the ir da ug hte r a nd that B a rt le tt de nie s the se a lle g a tio ns . Th e re po rt do e s no t c on c lud e that B a rt le tt
a bu se d h is d aught er, and no inf or ma tio n to that e ff

e c t is inc lud e d in

the re po rt . U nd e r t

he se circ umstances, the district c ourt did not a buse its discr etion in de clining to e x clude information from the re port that might ha

rm a de fenda

nt. Finally , Ba

rtlett challeng es the district cour t’s purported f

ail u re t o append its finding s and decision to a

ny PSR forwa

rded to the Bur eau of Prisons. Under Criminal Rule 32, a sentenc ing c ourt “must append a copy of the court’s deter minations unde r this rule to a ny copy of the presentence repor t ma d e available to the Bur eau of Prisons.” Fe d. R. Crim. P . 32(i)(3) (C). The PSR was

a me nd e d to re fl e c t th a t th e “ de fe nd a nt d e nie s th a t he se xua lly a bu se d his da

ug hte r. ” B a rt le tt a

rgue s, howeve r, that the amended PSR does not also refle ct that the district cour t w as u nable to re solve whether the alleg ations of sexual abuse ar e true or fa lse. A district court may

comply with Criminal Rule 32(i)( 3)(C) b y att achinga copy of the sentenc ing transcr ipt to the PSR

. Sm ith , 101 F.3d at 217. I n Sm ith , the def endant a sked the district court to strike from the PSRref ere nces to c erta in state convictions that had be en vac ated pr ior to the hear ing, a s a re sult of which the def endant no long er qua lified as an a rmed c are er c riminal. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) . During the sentenc ing he aring , the distr i ct co u rt stated on the r ecor d that the challeng ed convic ti ons had bee n set aside, a nd order ed the tra

nscript containing its remarks to be attache d to the PSRas an indication that these convictions wer e no long er va lid. Sm ith , 101 F.3dNo. 09-6223

Un ite d S tat es v . B ar tle tt

- 7 - at 217. The F irst Ci rc u i t d eeme d attachme nt of the transc ript to be an a dequate corr ective, a nd ref used to direc t the probation off icer to revise the PSR itself. Id. Nothing in Sm ith , howeve r, sug g ests that attachinga copy of the sente ncing transcr ipt to the PSRis the only

way to c omply with Rule 32(i)(3) (C). The Rule does not require more than w hat the dis tr ic t c ourt

did he re : “ or de r t

hat th e pr e se nte nc e re po rt be re vis e d to ind ic a te that . . . th e Court is

un a ble to r e so lve wh e the r t

he re po rt e d a lle g a tio ns are tr ue or fa lse .” R.5 2 at 34 . T hat de c re e wo uld have br ou g ht t

he c ourt int o c om pl iance wi th R

ule 32 ’s mand a te if

it h a d b e e n f

ull y c a rr ie d o ut. Ba rtlett mischara cter izes the district court’s or der, c laiming that “ the District Court mere ly order ed the Pr ob a tio n Of

fi c e r to ame nd

the PSR to re fl e c t th a t B a rt le tt d e nie s th e a lle g a tio ns tha t he se xua lly abused his daug hter.” Appellant B r. at 15. B ut the district court did more tha n that. I t also order ed that the PSRbe ame nded to indicate t h at t h e C o u rt did not resolve the f actua l dispute one way

or another

. I n short, there would be no violation of Criminal Rule 32(i)(3) (C) if a c opy of the sente ncing transcr ipt had been attached to the PSR, or if the re port had bee n amende d to refle ct that the district court wa s unable to resolve whether the alleg ations are true or false. Given the district cour t’s order that the PSRbe ame nded to re flec t (1) that the a lleg ations of sex ual abuse are disputed, and (2) that it was unable to re solve the dispute, t h e court’s application of Rule 32(i)(3)( C) does not requir e
reve rsal. B ut t

he dis tr ic t c ourt

may no t be awa

re that it s o rd e r t o ame nd the PSR w a s n ot f

ull y
car ried out. The repor

t was not actua lly amende d in this second w ay , and we do not know from the

rec ord whe ther the se ntencing transcr ipt was attache d to the PSRmade available to the B urea u ofNo. 09-6223

Un ite d S tat es v . B ar tle tt

- 8 - Pr iso ns . O n th e iss ua

nc e of the mand a te , th e re fo re , th e dis tr ic t c ourt sh ou ld e ns ur e that, i n compliance with Rule 32(i)(3) , the P SR ref lects t he court’s deter

mination, or the PSR has attache d to it a c o p y o f th e c o u rt’ s d e te r

mi n a ti o n , th a t t

h e c o u rt i s n o t a

b le to r e s o lv e w h e th e r

th e r e p o rte d alleg ations are true. Affir med.