## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 07

- 3514 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. J EFFRE Y H ECKEL, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the Western Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 07 C R 41

—Jo hn C. Sh abaz, Judge .
A RGUED J UNE 5, 2008

— D ECI DE D J UNE 22, 2009

Befo re P OSNER, K ANN E , an d S YKES, C ircu it Judges . S YKES, Ci r c u i tJu dge

. Afte r a uct i o ni ngi te m s o n the I nter net that he had no i ntenti on o fdel i ver i ng, J eff re y He c k e l wa s i n d i ct ed o n fi v e c o u n t s o fwi r e fr a u d

. He ple aded gui l ty to one ofth os e counts a nd was sente nced to 30 m onths in p ris on. H ecke l appeal s hi s s entence ; he c o nten d s t ha t th e di st r i ctc o ur t er r ed i n c al cul at i ng both hi s o ffense l eve l and cr i m i nal -h i sto rysco re wh en i t appl i ed a two
- l ev ele nha nc ementf o r mass - m ar k et i ng and add ed th ree cr i m i nal

- hi sto rypoi nts fora sta teco ur t th eft co nv i ct i o n.2 N o. 07

- 3514 W e affi rm . A pp l i cati on o fthe m ass - m ar ket i ng enhancem ent was appro pri ate bec ause H ecke l used the Int er n et to conduct l ar ge -scale adver ti si ng to at tr act bi dd er s t o hi s fra ud ule nt o nl i ne auct i ons. M or eov er, the dist ri ct cour t d i d not cl ear l y err w hen i t de t e rm i ned th at H eckel ’ s pr ev i o us s ta te c o nv i ct i o n h ad r es ul te d i n a 19 -m on th te rm in p ris on , w h ich ad d ed th re e c rim in alhi s t o r y p o i nt s t o h i s t o t a l

. He c k e l ’ s r e c o l l e c t i o n that hi s s entence was shor terwas i nsuffi ci ent t o castdoubt o n th e r e l i a b i l i t y a n d a c c u r a c y o fth e i n f o r ma t i o n i n t he pr es en te nc e i nv es ti gati o n r epo r t ( “P S R” ) , o n whi chthe d ist ric t c o u r t relie d . B ec au se th e d ist ric t c ou rtco rre c tly calcu lat e d H ecke l’ s offen se level an d crim inal-history sc or e an d im p os ed a se n te n c e w ith in th e a p p lica b le gui del i nes r ange, we presum e that th e sente nce was re as on sa b le

— a pre sum pti on Heckelhas f ai l ed to r ebut.

I . B a c kg r o und B e g i n n i n gi n Ma r c h 20 02 , J e ff r e y He c k e l u s e d t wo I nt erne t au ction w ebsites to d efraud suc cess ful bi d d ers on i tem s h e h ad l i ste d fo r sal e. The sc hem e was si m ple : H e would l i st an i tem fo r aucti on, acc ept the hi ghest bid , cash the ch eck sen t to him by the w inn in g bidd er, and shi p a pro du ct f ari nfe ri orto the one advert i sed on the websi te. H ecke l ’ s fra ud n et te d hi m i n exces s o f $15, 000. M o sto fthe wi nni ngb i dders c he at ed byHec k el ’ s f r au d conta cted l aw - enf or cem en t a uthor i ti es, and hi s o perat i on w as shut d own j ust o vera yea r afteri t had be gun. H ecke l w as i nd i cted on fi ve counts of m ai l f ra ud i n vi ol atio n o fN o. 07

- 3514 3 18 U. S
. C. § 1 34 1. He a g r ee d t o pl ead gui l tyt o o ne c o unt an d pay r es ti tu ti o n to al l fi ve vi ct i m s. I n ex ch an g e the g o v e r n me n td i s mi s s e d th e r e ma i n i n gc o u n t s a n d r e c o mm ended that he re cei ve a r educt i on i n hi s o ffense l eve l for acc ep tan ce of re s p ons ibi li ty. T he district cou rt accepte d H ecke l ’ s pl ea. The proba ti on offi ce c al cul ate d a to talo ffense l eve l o f11 und ert h e sentenci ng g uidel i nes, wh i ch i ncl ud ed a b ase o ffen se l ev elo f7pl us a 4-l eveli nc r ea se b ec au se the am ount of l oss w as m or e than $10, 000 but les s than $ 3 0 , 0 0 0
. U. S
. S
. G. § 2B 1.1( a)(1) & ( b)(1)( C ) (200 6 ). T he PSR al so appli ed the tw o- l eve l r educti on for acceptance of re sp on sib ility , i d. § 3E 1.1 (a), b u t t h en ad d ed tw o lev els becausethe offen se w as co m m itt ed th ro u gh “m as s-m ar keting, ” i d. § 2 B 1
. 1 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( A) ( i i )
. H e c k e l o bj e c t e d t o th e a ppli cati on o fthe m ass - m ar ket i ng enhancem ent. Fo r H ec ke l’s c rim in al-h ist or y s c o r e , t h e P SR init ially ass ess ed 12 poi nts, pl aci ng hi m i n cr i m i nal

- hi sto ryCateg o r y V. Heckel m ad e two o bj ec ti o ns t o thi s to ta l

. The pr o ba ti o n o ffi ce the n a g r ee d wi th on e o fthe se o bj ec ti o ns and i ssued an a dd endu m r educing H ecke l ’ s s cor e t o 10, the m i ni m um f orCateg or y V. T h e pr obat i on o ffi ce di sagr eed with Heckel ’ s s eco nd o bj ecti on

— re lat in g to h is state conv iction fortheft

— and r efused to re d uce H ecke l’ s total any furth er. The di s t r i c t c o ur t a c c e pt e d the r e du c t i o n f r o m 1 2 t o 10 p oints, but d id n ot sp ecifi cally ad d ress H ecke l’ s o bj ec ti o n r eg ar di ngthe t r ea tmento f hi s th eft co nv i ct i o n. A s a res ult, H ecke l rem ained in crim inal-history Cat egory V. T he c o urt al s o r ej e c t e d He c k e l ’ s c ha l l e ng e t o the a p-4 N o. 07

- 3514 pl i ca ti o n o fthe mass - m ar ketinge nha nc ement, s o the g u i d e l i n e s r e c o mme n d e d a r a n g e o f 2 4

- 3 0 mo n th s . Co mm en tingo n Hec k el ’ s ex te ns i ve cr i m i na l pa sta nd the ne ed to det er any fut ure crim inal beha vior, the cou rt sentenced H ecke l to 30 m onths i n pri son and 3 ye ar s o f s up e r v i s e d r e l e a s e . He c k e la pp e a l e d.

II . A n alysis Ou r re vi ew of a dist ri ct c ourt ’ s a pp l i cati on o fthe gui del i nes i s de no vo, but w e r evi ew fin d ings off act f orcl ear er ro r. U nite d State s v . S a m uel s , 521 F.3d 804 , 815 (7th C ir. 2008 )
. S entencing f actfi nd i ng is enti tl ed to defer ence
“ ‘ unle ss w e hav e a defin ite and fi rm co nvi cti on that a m ist ak e h as be en m ad e.’ ” Id. ( quoti ng U ni t e d Sta tes v. Wi l s on , 502 F.3d 718 , 721 (7th C ir. 2001)).

A. Ma s s - ma r ke t i ng H ec ke l firstarg u es th at th e d ist ric t c ou rtinc or re c t ly cal c ul a t e d h i s o ffe ns e l e v e l b e c a us e the c o ur ta dde d t wo l e v e l s f o r u s e o f“ mas s - mar k e t i ng . ” U. S
. S
. G. § 2B1
. 1(b) ( 2) ( A)( i i )
. The c o m m en ta r y t o thi s g ui d el i ne ex pl ains tha t “mas s- m ar k et i ng ” i nclud es “ a pl an, prog ra m , pro m oti on, o r cam pai gn tha t i s co n d ucted thro ugh solicita ti on byte l ephone, m ai l, the I nter net, o r ot h er m ea n s t o in d u c e a lar ge n u m b er of p er so n s t o . . . pu rcha se goods o r ser vi ces. ” Id. § 2B 1.1 cm t. n.4(A ). B ecau s e t h e a u c t ion w ebsites H ecke l us ed w ere acces sibl e t o the gener alpubli c and H ecke l at tem pted toN o. 07

- 3514 5 i ncre ase the pri ce o fthe i tem s pos ted byso l i ci ti ng a large nu m ber of bi d s over the I nt erne t, th e d istri ct cou rt appli ed the enhancem ent. A ccor ding to H ecke l, the dist ri ct c ou rter re d because I nter net a ucti ons ar e di ffer ent in ki nd fr om m ass - m ar ket

i ng f ra ud s that use tel em ar ket i ng or othe r f or m s oflarg esc ale so licit at ion . A n au c ti o n, H ec ke l arg u es , ca n on ly ha ve o ne v i ct i m : the wi nni ngb i d d er. The g ui del i ne re quir es th at the schem e “ i nd uce a l ar ge num bero f per so ns t o . . . pur ch as e g o o ds o r s er vi ce s. ” Heck elmai nta i ns tha t th e li m i te d po o l o fa ctua l v i ct i m s defea ts the appli cati on o fthe enhancem ent. Casel aw i s s parse o n thi s li n e ofar gum ent, but the few c as es th at h av e t ak en u p th e is su e h av e b ee n d e c id ed in f av o r o fa ppl y i ngthe e nha nc ement
. In U ni t ed Sta t e s v. P irel lo , the defe nd ant used I nter net c l ass i fi eds to ad vertise com p ut ers for sale. 255 F.3d 728 , 7 3 0 (9th Cir. 2001 ). Th ree un su sp ectin g con su m ers sen t Pirell o m ore th an $4 , 000 f orco m pu ter s that he did nothave and cou ld no t pr o vi de. Pi r el l o a r g ue d tha t th e m as s- m ar k et i ng enhancem ent shoul d not a pp l y b ecause o nl y three peo pl e respo nde d t o hi s f r au dul en t I nt erne t so l i ci ta ti o n. The Ni nth Ci r cui t r ej ec te d thi s ar g um en t, ho l di ng i ns te ad th atthe l i m i te d numbe r o fvictims “ was the pr o ducto fc ha nc e” tha t was “ i n n o way i ndicative ofthe bre adth ofP i re l l o’ s s ol i ci tat i on. ” Id. at 732. The cou rt re aso ne d tha ta nyo the r c o ns ume r s wh o r e s po nd e d a l so “w oul d hav e fallen vi cti m to hi s pl an. ” Id. ; see also U ni t e d S t at e s v. M agnu son , 307 F.3d 333 , 335 (5th C ir. 20 02 ) ( ag r ee i ngwi th P irel lo tha t th e m as s- m ar k et i ng6 N o. 07

- 3514 enhancem ent “ m er el y r eq uir es advert i si ng tha t r eaches a l ar ge num bero fper sons” ) ( i nternal quotat i on m ar ks om itted ). The g ui del i ne i ts el fs ug g es ts tha t th e m as s- m ar k et i ng enh a nc e men t a pp l i e s t o s o l i c i t a t i o n s c he mes r e a c hing a l ar g e nu m be r o fpo te nt i alv i ct i m s r eg ar dl es s o fthe num bero factual vict i m s. Contai ned w i thi n § 2 B1. 1( b) ( 2) ar e th r ee othe r e nha nc ement s f o r fr au ds i nv o l ving mor e tha n 10, 5 0 , o r 2 5 0 v i c t i ms r e s pe c t i v e l y . U. S
. S
. G. § 2 B1. 1( b) ( 2) ( A )

- ( C). I ncre asi ng a sente nce under the m ass m ar ke tin g e n h an c em en t o n ly w h en th e v ic tim co u n t is l ar ge w oul d renderthes e o therpro visio ns super fl uous. I ns te ad of f o cus i ngo n the a ctua l numbe r o fv i ct i m s, the m ass - m ar ket i ng enhancem ent focuse s o n defe nd ants w ho have used a parti cul arsolicitati on m etho d to i nc r ea se the numbe r o fpo te nt i alv i ct i m s. I nde ed, the A pp l i cati on N ote s e xplai n that the e nhancem ent a pp l i es to “cas es i n w hi ch m ass -m ar ket i ng has been used to target a l ar g e numbero fpe r so ns , r eg ar dl es s o fthe num bero fper sons w ho have sust ai ned an act u al l oss o r inj u ry .” U. S
. S
. G. a p p . C , vol. II, am en d . 617(20 03 ); see also U ni t e d S t at e s v. O l s han , 371 F.3d 129 6, 13 0 1 ( 11th Cir. 20 04 ) ( fi nd i ngtha t th e m as s- m ar k et i ng“ enha nc ement focus es on th e m eth od of infl icting the harm ”); U nite d State s v. Fre dett e, 315 F. 3d 1235 , 1244 n. 4 (10 th Cir
. 20 03) (“[T ]h e e nhancem ent form ult i ple vi cti m s g oes to the ultim ate h arm cau s e d by the de fend an t’s co nduc t, whi l e th e enha nc ementf o r mass - m ar k et i ng con cern s th e scop e and sop histication of the d efend an t’s fraud

. ”).N o. 07

- 3514 7 H er e, H ecke l ’ s s chem e net ted o nl y a sm al l num bero f victim s, bu t the l oss th at th ose few suffered w as ex acerba te d b y Hec k el ’ s ch osen meth o d o fs o l i ci ta ti o n. The com peti ti ve bi dd i ng pro cess o f a n I nter net a ucti on o ften in c rease s the pri ce that a bi dd erm i ght o ther w i se have to pay. U se ofthe I nter net t o advert i se and conduct an aucti on

— l i k e u s e o ft e l e p h o n e s i n a “ t e l e ma r k e t i n gc a mp aign th at soli cits a l arge nu m ber of ind ivi d ua ls to p urchase” go od s orse rv i ces

— exposes m or e co nsum er s t o th e fr a u d th a n o th e r wi s e wo u l d h a v e b e e n p o s s ib l e , a nd po t e nt i a l l y i nc r e a s e s the pr i c e ( a nd the r e f o r e the l o s s ) by ex p an d in g t h e n u m b er of bid d er s. U .S .S.G . § 2B 1.1 cm t. n.4(A ). Eve n tho ug h a n Interne t au ct i o n r es ul ts i n j us t o ne w i nning bi dd erand thus o nl y o ne victi m , the sheer sc o pe o fthe po ss ibl e bi ddi ngdr i ve s th e pr i ce of the ite m on th e v irt u al a u c tio n blo c k

. P os tin g a rar e c oin f orsa l e o n the In te rnet, as H ecke l di d i n the count t o w hi ch he pl ed gui l ty, i nvi ted the vast o nl i ne publ i c to bi d, a nd tho se who di d s o wer e tr ying to pur ch as e th e i te m b y s ug g es tinga pr i ce tha t th ey bel i ev ed no co m pet i ngo nl i ne b i dderwoul d e xc eed. Tha t o nl y o ne suc h b i dde r e v e ntua l l y wo n the o nl i ne a uc t i o n do e s not ne g at e th e ha r m o fthi s m etho d o ffr au dul en t so l i ci ta tio n. C f. U nite d S tate s v. B lanchet t, 41 F. A pp ’ x 181 , 18 3 ( 10th Ci r . 2 0 0 2 ) ( “ [ Th e de fe nd a nt ] n e v e r i nt e nd e d t o p r o v i de com pu ter s t o pros pecti ve buyer s, and thus did notfeel bo und t o a cc eptonl y the hi g he sto ffer, l ea ving every Intern et us er w h o b id on the com p ut ers p oten tially vu lnerable.”). He c k e l ’ s wa s e xa c t l y the ty pe of“pl an, pro gr am , p ro m oti on, or cam pai gn” that the m ass -8 N o. 07

- 3514

Bec aus e we c onc l ude thatus e ofan Int er ne tauct i on i s a m ea ns 1 o f “s o lic ita tio n . . . to in d u ce a l a r g e n u m b er o f p er so n s to
. . . pu r c ha s e g o o d s o r s e r v i c e s , ” w e n e e d n o ta d d r e s s th e g o vern m e nt’s altern ativ e arg u m en t that su ch an au ction also qu alifies as a “co nte st or sw eep stak es.” U .S. S.G
. § 2B 1.1 cm t. n .4(A )(i)-(ii). mar k e t i nge nh a nc e men ti s de s i g ne d t o a ddr e s s . U. S
. S
. G. § 2B 1.1 cm t. n.4(A ). 1

B . C rim in al-h is tory S c ore H ec ke l al so conte nd s that the di str i ct c ourter re d by ass ess i ng thr ee cri m i nal

- hi sto rypoint s forhi s 1 992 sta te convi cti on f ortheft. U nd erU
. S. S. G. § 4 A 1. 1(a), a cri m i nal defe nd ant i s a ssi gned thr ee poi n ts for e ach “pr i or se nt en ce o fi m pr i so nm en t ex ce eding on e ye ara nd o ne m onth. ” Tw o poi nts a re added ifthe sente nce was b et w ee n 6 0 d ay s a n d 13 m on th s. Id. § 4A 1.1( b). Th e PSR re p or te d th at H ec ke l w as se n te n c ed to 1 9 m o n th s fo r th is o ffen se; H ec k elo nl y r ec al l ed spe ndi ng6 months i n a com m u n ity -b as ed b eh av iora l m odi fi cati on pro gr am w i th sho rtst i nts in p ris on f orpro bati on vi ol ati ons. H ecke l cl ai m s that th e go ver nm ent had the bur den of pr o vingthat the i nf o r m at i o n in the PS R was r el i ab l e an d that i t f a i l e d t o do s o . He a r g ue s tha t he s ho ul d have re cei ved onl y th e tw o- poi nt i ncre ase i nstea d ofthr ee, pl a c i ngh i m i n c r i mi na l

- hi sto ryCa t e g o r y I V; the a pplica bl e guidel i nes r ange w oul d then have dro pp ed fro m 24- 30 m onths to 18- 24 m onth s. Id. C h. 5, Pt. A
. H ecke l p r e s e r v e d h i s o bj e c t i o n a t s e n t e n c i n g, s o we r e v i e w theN o. 07

- 3514 9

c o u r t’s d ec isio n for c lea r er ro r. Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Ne wman , 148 F.3d 871, 877 (7th Cir. 1998). The dist ri ct c ourtm ay re l y o n the i nfo rm ati on co ntai ned in the PSR so l ong as i t is w ell s u p p o r t e d and ap p ears re liab le. U nit e d S t at e s v. Sa l i nas , 365 F.3d 582 , 587 (7th C ir. 20 04 ). “W h en th e cou rt re lies on su c h in for m at i o n in sente nci ng a defe nd ant, the defe nd ant be ar s th e bur den of s ho wi ng tha t the pr e s e nt e nc e r e po r t i s i na c c ur a te or unrel i abl e. ” Id. The defe nd ant cannot att ack the i nfo rm ati on i n the P S R b y ma k i nga “ b a r e de ni a l ” o fi t s a c curacy . U ni t e d S tat e s v. M us t r e ad, 42 F. 3d 1097, 1101-02 (7th C ir. 1994 )
. Onlywh en the d efe nd ent’ s obj ecti on cr eat es re al do ubta s to the r el i ab i l i tyo fthe i nf orm ation in the PS R do e s the g o v e r nme nt ha v e the b ur de n o fi nd e pe nd

en tly d em on st ra tin g t h e a c c u ra c y of t h e in for m at ion
. Id. at 1102
. H ecke l p re sente d no docum entar y e vi dence to chal l enge the info rm atio n in the PSR about hi s 1 9- m onth th e fts e n t e n c e , a n d h i s r e c o l l e c t i o n w a s f a r fr o m u n a mbi g uo us . Hi s i ni ti alc l ai m , made i n h i s o bj ec ti o ns t o the PS R, was tha t he s er ve d s i x months ’ i nc ar ce r at i o n a nd at te nde d a t r ea tmentpr o g r am f o r an a ddi ti o na l s i x months aft er h e v iola te d p ro b at ion . A t s en te n c in g, h ow ev er , his counselsi m plyar gued that H ecke l “does notr ecal l ev er bei ng to l d by a j ud ge that he was being se nten c ed to a pri son sente nce. ” Heckel ’ s co unsel al so sai d h e had checke d the r eco rds o n w hi ch the proba ti on o ffi cerhad re l i ed, but the obj ecti on r em ain ed hi ghl y a m bi guous: “Iw en t o verther e a nd l oo ked, and Ij ust don’ t feelthat the recor d i s cl eareno ugh to gi ve hi m thr ee cri m i nal h ist or y p oin ts on th is p ar tic u lar co n vic tio n .”10 N o. 07

- 3514

I n hi s r e pl y br i e f, He c ke l a r gu e s tha t the di s t r i c t c ou r ti m pr op 2 erl y all ow ed the gov ernm ent to supp le m ent the rec ord aft er he had fil ed hi s brief w ith thi s court. Th e su p plem entar y do cum e nth a d b e e n r e l i e d u po n by the pr ob a t i ono ffi c e whe n m aki ng i t s r ec om m en dat i on butwas no ts ubm i t t ed to the dist r i c t c ou r t f or c on s i de r a t i on a t s e nt e nc i ng . Th e r e i s no need t o a ddr e s s He c k e l ’ s o b j e c t i o n t o th e s u p p l e me n t a t i o n, h o wever; w e c onclude that the dist ri ctco u rt d id not c le arl y err in adop tin g t he PSR ’ s rec om m endation even thoug h itnever c ons i der ed the s uppor t i ng e vi denc e l at ers ubm i t t ed by the prob ati on offic e. H ec ke l’s t en ta tiv e a n d co n f l i c tin g re c olle c tio n of h is th eft s en tence o f15 ye ar s e ar l i erwas not enough t o cast do ubto n the a ccura cyo r r el i ab i l i tyo fthe PS R. At s en te nc i ngHec k el ’ s co uns els ug g es te d onl y tha t th e do cum en ts us ed by th e p robation office to su p p ort t h e inform ati on i n the PSR w er e no t co m ple tel y c l ear . Thi s a m ounts to a “bare d en ial” of th e inform ation in th e PSR

— not en o ug h t o c al l the a cc ur ac y o fthe P SR int o que st i o n. The P SR rep or te d th at H ec ke l w as se n t e n c ed to 19 m on th s in the c ustody ofthe M i nnesot a Departm ent o fCor re cti ons, but thatthi s s enten c e w as sta yed and he was pl aced o n pr o b a t i o n f o r 5 y e a r s . T h e s t a y wa s l i ft e d , h o we v e r, a nd th e 1 9

- mon th s e n t e n c e w a s r e i n s t a t e d a ft e r H e c k e l c o mm i tted a th i r d v i o l at i o n o fhi s pr o ba ti o n. Abs en t an y hard ev i dence dem onst ra ti ng t hat thi s info rm ati on was in ac c u ra te , w e c an n otsa y t h at th e d ist r i c t c ou rtcle ar ly er re d by rely in g on th e P SR to ca lcu lat e H ec ke l’s c rim in alhi sto rycat ego ry . 2 H ecke l al so ass er ts that the di str i ct c ourtf ailed to m ake a s peci fi c r uling o n hi s obj ecti on to the three

- poi nt as ses s-N o. 07

- 3514 11

m ent forhi s theft co nvi cti on i n vi ol ati on o fthe Fe de r al R u les of C rim ina l P roc edu re . T h e r u l e s r e q u i r e th e s en te nc i ngc o ur t to r ule o n “ an y di spu te d po r ti o n o fthe prese ntence re porto r othe r contr ov erted m att er. . . o r d et er m in e t h at a ru lin g is u n n ec es sa ry .” F ED . R. C RIM . P. 32(i) (3 )( B ). I n an nou nc ing its senten ce, the d istri ct cou rt r efer r ed to the PS R’ s cr i m i na l

- hi st o r y c al cul ati on and note d that the poi nt to talwas 10 r at h erthan 12 as sta ted in th e o rig in al re p or t. B u t t h e c ou rtd id n otd ire c tly addr es s H ec k el ’ s o bj ecti on to the 1 9- m o nth the ft se nte nc e an d i ns te ad pl ac ed hi m i n Ca te g o r y V wi th o ut fur th ere l uci dat i o n. W e hav e char acteri zed Rule 32 ’ s r equi re m ent a s a “m i ni m alburden. ” U nited Sta tes v. Sy k es , 35 7 F
. 3d 672, 674 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04)
. The se ntenci ng co urt m ust m ake fi nd i ngs to re sol ve a di spute be tw een the defenda n t an d the g overnm en t, b ut a gene r alr efer en ce b y the c o ur t to the PSR “co nsti tutes suffi c ient fi nd i ngs e ven a s t o contr overte d f acts w he n w e are assu red that the d istri ct cou rt m ade a deci si on o fdesi gn, r atherthan ofc on ve n i ence, to ad opt the PSR. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Burke, 14 8 F
. 3d 832, 83 6 (7t h C ir. 19 98 ); s e e al s o U ni t e d St at e s v. Cure t on , 89 F. 3d 469, 47 3 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 6) ( “[ S ] o l o nga s i t ac tu al l y r es o l ve s th e d isp u te d iss u e on th e rec or d , a sen te n c in g cou rtfu lfills th e pu rp oses of Ru le 32. ”). A l though the d istri ct c ourtdi d not e xpli ci tl y a dd re ss H ecke l’ s obj ection to the P SR ’s tr e a t m en t of his th eft co nv i ct i o n, th e co ur t r efer en ce d th e i nf o r m at i on in th e PSR and speci fi cal l y a dopted the PS R’s fi nd i ngs. A fter H ec k elo bj ec te d t o the a ddi ti o na l c r i m i na l

- hi st o r y po i nt12 N o. 07

- 3514 f orthe theft co nvi cti on, the p ro b ati on o ffi ce fi l ed an a d d e n d u m t o th e P S Ra l o n gw i th i t s s e n t e n c i n gr e c o mm endati on. The ad dend um d eta i l ed the sequence o fev ents l ea di ngt o Hec k el ’ s te r m o fi m p r i so nm en t, i nc l udi ngthe th r ee da te s upo n whi chhi s pr o ba ti o n was r ev o k ed an d the date that the pre vi ousl y s tay ed 19 -m onth s entence was r eins ta te d. The c o ur t ac k no wl edg ed an d a cc ept ed th e ad d en d u m w h en it n ot ed th at H ec ke l’s c or re c t c rim in alh ist or y s c or e w as 10 , in st ea d of 12 as in i t i a l l y s ta te d in the PS R, and that he r em ai ned i n Catego ry V . Ru l e 3 2 re q u ire s n ot h in g m or e. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Cunn i ngh am , 42 9 F. 3d 673, 67 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) ( “W e hes i tat e t o re ad [ Rule 32] so broadl y that the j ud ge i s obl i ged to address ev e r y a r g u me n tth a ta d e fe n d a n tma k e s a tth e s e nten cing h earing.”).

C. Reasonable ness oft he Sen t ence H ecke l ’ s chal l enge to the r eas onabl eness o fh i s s entence r equi r es onl y br i efat te nt i o n. H ec k elfi r stc o nt en ds th atthe sente n c e i s unre aso nabl e be cause i t i s ba sed o n a pr oce du ra l er ro r

— th ati s, a n inc o r r ec t g ui del i ne s r an g e. Our r e v i e w is for a b u se of d isc re tio n, G a ll v. U nited Sta tes , 128 S. Ct. 58 6, 59 7 ( 2007 ) , and ther e was no abu se o f disc re ti on her e. H ecke l ’ s a rgum ent i s m er el y a r ei ter ati on o fhi s two c ha l l en g es t o the g ui del i ne s ca l cul at io n, w hi ch w e hav e r ej ecte d above

. Bec au se Hec k el ’ s g uide l i ne s r an g e was c o r r ec tly c al cul ate d and the di str i ct c ourtse ntenced h im w ithi n that ra n ge , th e s en te n c e is p r es u m ed rea so n ab le on ap p ea l. R ita v. U nited S t a tes , 127 S. Ct
. 2456, 2462-63 (2007).N o. 07

- 3514 13

W e ha v e he ld tha t Watts s ur vi ve d U n i te d S tates v. Bo oker, 3 5 4 3 U .S. 2 2 0 (20 0 5 ), an d re m a in s g o o d la w . E.g. , U n i te d S tat es v. H u rn , 49 6 F .3d 78 4 , 78 8 (7t h C ir . 20 0 7 ).

6- 22- 09 H ecke l nonethel ess m ai ntai ns thath is se ntence i s unre asonab l e because the dist ri ct cour t re fer enced a M ay 2007 proba ti on vi ola tion f orpurchasing and se l l i ng fi re ar m s, despit e be i ng o n noti ce that these charg es had been dropped. Bu t a wide r ange ofcon d u c t is r el evantat se nt en cing

— i ncl ud i ng uncharg ed conduct and char ges ofwh i ch the defen d an t was acqui tte d

— so l ong as that c on d u c t is es ta b lish ed by a p re p on d er an c e o f th e e vid en c e. U nite d State s v. Watts , 5 1 9 U
. S. 148 (1997); see also 3 18 U. S
. C. § 3 66 1; U. S
. S. G
. § 1 B1. 4. Hec k eldo es n’ t ar g ue that the c onduct und er l yi ng the pro bati on vi ol ati on di d no t o cc ur

— onl y that the f or m alchar ge s w er e di sm i sse d. A bsent evi dence to the contrary, the dist ri ct cou rt w as en t it le d t o rel y on th is inform ation in th e PSR eve n though the c harg es w er e dro pp ed. H eckelm ake s no o therchal l enge to the r eas onabl eness of h is sentence , and as s uch, has f ai l ed to r eb u t the pr esum pti on o fr easonab l eness . A FFI RMED