Opinion ID: 2751912
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: psr

Text: With respect to both the individualized drug quantity and the foreseeable use of firearms, Pizarro claims that the most recent PSR repeated the deficiencies that we ordered corrected in our prior decisions. We disagree. Previously, we directed that the sentencing court should, on remand, provide Pizarro with a PSR which identifies -34- specific drug quantities. Correy, 570 F.3d at 400. We explained that, [a]rmed with this PSR, Pizarro will be given a genuine opportunity to argue that the testimony was incredible, that it does not support the incriminating inference, and/or that it was not foreseeable. Id. With respect to the firearm enhancement, we directed that the PSR identify trial transcript portions that support any conclusion that he possessed weapons or that weapon possession was foreseeable to him. Id. at 401. We also ordered that the PSR include references to the trial record. See id. at 384. As we ordered, the Second Amended PSR filed on July 7, 2011 included in paragraphs 92 through 102 a synopsis of testimony with respect to specific drug quantities that arguably were foreseeable to Pizarro. With respect to a firearm, paragraph 92 specifically cited testimony that Pizarro received a firearm through the mail in August 1993. Hence, the Second Amended PSR satisfied our order in Correy.