Opinion ID: 2762421
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Norwood also argues that the government failed to present sufficient evidence to support the sentencing enhancement's application. 'If the defendant objects to any of the factual allegations contained [in the PSR] . . . , the government must present evidence at the sentencing hearing to prove the existence of the disputed facts.' United States v. Hartstein, 500 F.3d 790, 796 (8th Cir. 2007) (alteration in original) (emphasis added) (quoting United States v. Jenners, 473 F.3d 894, 897–98 (8th Cir. 2007)). Norwood is correct that evidence is required to prove the factual allegations supporting a sentencing enhancement. However, the factual allegations already contained in the record before the district court are uncontested. If those facts justify the enhancement, no additional evidence is required. The government need not present evidence to establish facts that Norwood has already conceded. See, e.g., Huston, 744 F.3d at 591–92 (upholding an application of the sophisticated-means 2 Additionally, the means-of-identification enhancement applies when, as in Norwood's case, counterfeit checks are printed with existing bank account and routing information because the check itself would qualify as another means of identification. Other circuits have so concluded. See United States v. Alexander, 725 F.3d 1117, 1119–20 (9th Cir. 2013) (finding that the plain language of § 1028(d)(7) includes a counterfeit check with an individual's name, bank account number, and bank routing number as a means of identification). We agree with our sister circuits that such a check is within the statutory meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1028(d)(7). -8- enhancement even though [n]o party submitted evidence on this issue at either sentencing hearing).