Opinion ID: 656976
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Billups' challenge to her sentence.

Text: 15 Billups claims that in considering her objections to the factual accuracy of the presentence report, the district court did not make the explicit findings mandated by Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(c)(3)(D), and requests that her case be remanded for resentencing. 16 A defendant has a due process right to be sentenced on the basis of accurate information. See United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 447-48 (1972); United States v. Isirov, 986 F.2d 183, 185 (7th Cir.1993); United States v. Coonce, 961 F.2d 1268, 1275 (7th Cir.1992). Under Rule 32(c)(3)(D), the sentencing court is required to make a finding as to any alleged inaccuracy in the presentence report, or to determine that no such finding is needed because the controverted fact will not be considered in sentencing. Isirov, 986 F.2d at 185. To succeed on a claim that the court based its sentence on inaccurate information, the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that the information was inaccurate, and that the court actually relied on it. Id.; Coonce, 961 F.2d at 1275, 1278-80; United States v. Slaughter, 900 F.2d 1119, 1123 (7th Cir.1990). Moreover, where the court makes clear on the record the basis for its decision, the purpose of the rule is satisfied; thus, a failure to attach written findings does not call for a remand. 2 See United States v. Westbrook, 986 F.2d 180, 183 (7th Cir.1993); United States v. Canino, 949 F.2d 928, 951 (7th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 1940 (1992); Slaughter, 900 F.2d at 1123. 17 At Billups' sentencing hearing, the district court ascertained that Billups had read the presentence report with her attorney and asked her whether she had any disagreements with it. (Sentencing Tr. at 4-6). Billups continued to insist that she was innocent of all charges, and in particular that she never worked second jobs while receiving disability benefits. (Sentencing Tr. at 9-11). The district court carefully explained to Billups that she had been convicted of those charges and that the law required her to be sentenced in accordance with the Sentencing Guidelines. (Sentencing Tr. at 11-12). See Coonce, 961 F.2d at 1275. The district court also accepted counsel's explanation of Billups' initial failure to appear in response to several subpoenas, and did not take it into consideration for purposes of sentencing. (Sentencing Tr. at 12-13). Billups' challenge to her sentence is therefore without arguable legal merit. 3