Opinion ID: 788500
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Count Four Felon-in-Possession Conviction

Text: 101 In Count Four of the indictment, Robinson was charged as a felon in possession of firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). His sole challenge to his conviction on this count is that the prosecution failed to prove the existence of the requisite prior felony conviction — or, in the parlance of the federal statute, a conviction of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Rather, he contends that his 1996 California conviction for battery on a police officer is properly viewed as a misdemeanor, and not a felony, where he was placed on summary probation as a result of this offense and ordered to serve four days in the county jail. In support of this argument, Robinson cites a California Penal Code provision stating that certain categories of crimes are properly classified as misdemeanors if the state court enters a judgment imposing a punishment other than imprisonment in the state prison. Cal.Penal Code § 17(b)(1). 102 We addressed precisely this situation in United States v. Boumelhem, 339 F.3d 414, 425-27 (6th Cir.2003). There, as here, the defendant had pled nolo contendere to a so-called wobbler offense in a California court — that is, an offense where the sentence imposed determines the classification under state law as either a misdemeanor or felony. Boumelhem, 339 F.3d at 426. We explained that this state-law determination is relevant to a federal conviction under § 922(g), because federal law provides that a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year does not include any State offense classified by the laws of the State as a misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or less. 339 F.3d at 425-26 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 921(20)(B)). Accordingly, if the defendant's conviction were classified as a misdemeanor under California law, it would be punishable only by imprisonment not exceeding one year, and hence would be excluded from the federal definition of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. 339 F.3d at 426. 103 Following the defendant's state court plea in Boumelhem, his sentencing proceeding was suspended and he received felony probation, subject to the condition that he spend six days in the county jail. We held that these events did not provide the necessary state-law misdemeanor classification to exempt the defendant from federal prosecution as a felon-in-possession under § 922(g): 104 Under California law, where the sentencing court grants probation and proceedings are suspended, no judgment is rendered. Further, at the time [the defendant] took the actions that would form the basis of his federal conviction, the sentencing court had not declared [the defendant's] earlier state conviction to be a misdemeanor. Thus, neither [Cal.Penal Code] § 17(b)(1), which requires a judgment, nor § 17(b)(3), which requires a classification by the court, applied to [the defendant] at the time he took the actions that would lead to his federal convictions. We therefore conclude that the district court properly found that [the defendant] had been convicted for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. 105 339 F.3d at 426 (citations and footnote omitted). 106 The reasoning and result in Boumelhem apply with full force here. Just as in that case, the California court records here reflect that, following Robinson's plea of nolo contendere, the state court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed Robinson on summary probation. ( See 12/17/1996 California Minute Order at 2, J.A. at 1317; see also 12/17/1996 State Court Hearing Tr. at 7-8, J.A. at 1538-39 (reflecting the court's rulings that proceedings are suspended and that Robinson was placed on summary, felony unsupervised probation).) This probation was subject to a number of terms and conditions, including four days' service in the county jail. As Robinson himself concedes, this apparently was the end of the matter, with the record failing to reflect that the judgment was ever finalized. (Appellant Br. at 58.) All of these circumstances, of course, are precisely the same as those presented in Boumelhem, and the same result necessarily is mandated here. 107 Although the record in this case includes one additional wrinkle, it does not assist Robinson in avoiding this outcome. Specifically, the California court records reflect the state court's ruling that, if Robinson maintained a 3.0 grade point average over the subsequent twelve months of his college studies, his conviction would be reclassified as a misdemeanor. ( See 12/17/1996 California Minute Order at 2, J.A. at 1317; see also 12/17/1996 State Court Hearing Tr. at 8-9, J.A. at 1539-40.) This, of course, is merely a statement of a condition under which the California court agreed to exercise its authority under Cal.Penal Code § 17(b) to classify Robinson's wobbler offense as a misdemeanor. Yet, as Robinson acknowledges, nothing in the record indicates that the state court actually exercised this authority, or that it was ever requested to do so — to the contrary, the court records reflect, and a California court official confirmed at trial, that the court never took any action to reduce Robinson's conviction to a misdemeanor. 37 Thus, we find no error in the district court's determination that Robinson had a prior felony conviction within the meaning of § 922(g). 108 D. Defendant Was Not Prejudiced by the District Court's Evidentiary Rulings During the Trial and Conduct of the Trial. 109 Defendant Robinson next complains that the district court erroneously admitted certain evidence at trial, and that various other prejudicial errors occurred during the trial. Specifically, he argues: (i) that the trial court's overly broad view of the charged Count One conspiracy resulted in the admission of evidence that should have been excluded as hearsay or for lack of proper notice under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b); (ii) that the district court and a government witness made prejudicial statements that warranted a mistrial; and (iii) that the district court failed to take appropriate action in response to Dena Carmichael's purported testimony that she was instructed not to speak with defense counsel. We address each of these contentions in turn. 110 1. Evidence Within the Scope of the Conspiracy 111 As noted earlier, several of the issues raised by Robinson on appeal turn upon the admission of evidence as within the scope of the charged Count One drug conspiracy. This evidence includes statements by co-conspirators that were admitted under Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E), and acts that, in the trial court's view, were part of the charged conspiracy, and thus did not qualify as other acts under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b). Robinson argues that some of this evidence lies outside the temporal scope of his alleged participation in the conspiracy, and that other evidence concerns events occurring and statements made beyond the geographical limits of the conspiracy — a conspiracy which, in his view, did not extend beyond the Eastern District of Tennessee. 38 We find no merit in these contentions. 112 Whether the challenged evidence was admitted as a co-conspirator statement under Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) or was deemed to be an act intrinsic to the conspiracy, and thus not governed by Fed.R.Evid. 404(b), our inquiry here is largely the same. When the government seeks to introduce a co-conspirator statement under the former Rule, it must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that there was a conspiracy involving the declarant and the nonoffering party, and that the statement was made `during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy.' Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 175-76, 107 S.Ct. 2775, 2778-79, 97 L.Ed.2d 144 (1987) (quoting Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E)). Similarly, to bring an act within the ambit of a conspiracy, and thus beyond the reach of the notice and other requirements of Rule 404(b), the act in question must be part of a continuing pattern of illegal activity, and cannot have occurred at [a] different time[ ] and under different circumstances from the offense charged. United States v. Barnes, 49 F.3d 1144, 1149 (6th Cir.1995). Here, Robinson challenges certain evidence as beyond either the temporal or geographic scope of the charged drug conspiracy. 113 Regarding temporal scope, Robinson argues that some of the acts or statements admitted as intrinsic to or during the course of the conspiracy actually pre- or post-dated his membership in the alleged conspiracy. As an example of the former, he points to the evidence of cocaine shipments to co-defendant Kawyn Logan in April through July of 1999. Robinson notes that no witness or other evidence directly linked him with Logan during this time frame — Dena Carmichael testified, for example, that Robinson first introduced her to Logan in late 1999. Accordingly, he reasons that any evidence from the middle of 1999 pre-dated his membership in the conspiracy, and hence could not be admitted as intrinsic to the charged conspiracy. 114 We reject this contention on both factual and legal grounds. As discussed earlier, the shipments to Logan in the spring and summer of 1999 could reasonably have been found by the jury to be part and parcel of a single conspiracy involving cocaine and marijuana. In addition, we already have noted the evidentiary connections between these shipments, the individuals identified on the labels of some of these packages, and subsequent shipments involving mailboxes that were opened at Robinson's direction. The government also introduced evidence of Robinson's longstanding relationship with Logan, which long pre-dated the mid-1999 shipments to Logan. Finally, even accepting Robinson's assertion that he had not yet joined the conspiracy, [i]t has long been established that a conspirator may join a conspiracy already in progress and be held responsible for actions done in furtherance of the conspiracy before he joined. Gravier, supra, 706 F.2d at 177-78. 115 Likewise, we find a sufficient basis for the district court's admission of statements made and acts occurring after May 19, 2000, despite Robinson's objections that he was in jail during a portion of this period and was in California for part of this time, and despite the testimony of Daniel McGill that his business relationship with Robinson ended when the two men were arrested on May 19. Even assuming that Robinson was no longer an active participant in the conspiracy after this date, he is nonetheless presumed to be a continuing member, and is chargeable for the subsequent acts of co-conspirators, so long the conspiracy was ongoing and Robinson did not establish his affirmative withdrawal from the conspiracy. See United States v. Brown, 332 F.3d 363, 373-74 (6th Cir.2003); United States v. Lash, 937 F.2d 1077, 1083-85 (6th Cir.1991). Mere cessation of activity is not sufficient to establish withdrawal from a conspiracy, Lash, 937 F.2d at 1083, and a defendant's arrest or incarceration does not qualify as an affirmative, volitional act of withdrawal, see, e.g., United States v. Nava-Salazar, 30 F.3d 788, 799 (7th Cir.1994); United States v. Gonzalez, 940 F.2d 1413, 1427 (11th Cir.1991). Here, there was ample evidence that the conspiracy continued beyond May 19, 2000 — the June 15, 2000 shipment of marijuana, for example, and the continuing use of mailboxes set up at Robinson's direction. We find no error, therefore, in the admission of statements made and acts occurring after Robinson purportedly discontinued his active participation in the conspiracy on May 19, 2000. 116 Nor did the trial court err in admitting acts occurring and statements made outside the Eastern District of Tennessee. Robinson's argument on this point rests upon the language in Count One of the indictment that Robinson conspired with others in the Eastern District of Tennessee, (Second Superseding Indictment at 1, J.A. at 35), and upon the omission of any reference to acts occurring elsewhere as is often included in indictments. Yet, Robinson has not cited, nor have we found, any authority for the proposition that such an omission operates as a geographical restriction on the scope of the evidence that may be introduced at trial. Cf. United States v. Wilson, 172 F.3d 874, 1999 WL 71499, at - (6th Cir. Jan.14, 1999) (rejecting a challenge to the sufficiency of an indictment, despite its lack of reference to the specific county in which the defendant had engaged in criminal conduct, and explaining that the indictment must be read under a common sense construction to determine whether it sufficiently informed the defendant of the charges against him). 117 In any event, much of this purportedly extraterritorial evidence had a direct bearing upon events within the Eastern District of Tennessee. Daniel McGill testified, for example, that he moved to Knoxville and began working with Robinson at the suggestion of John Robinson, Defendant's brother, who he lived with in Brazil immediately before he relocated to Tennessee. Similarly, while there was testimony regarding drug-related activities in California, this was directly linked to the shipments of cocaine from California to co-defendant Kawyn Logan in Knoxville. We do not view the indictment, the rules of evidence, or the relevant case law as mandating that the government's evidence be strictly and solely confined within the four corners of the Eastern District of Tennessee. Consequently, we find no error in the district court's rulings as to the admissibility of co-conspirator statements under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) and the inapplicability of Rule 404(b). 118 2. Allegedly Prejudicial Statements at Trial 119 Robinson next contends that he was prejudiced by certain statements made during the trial by the district judge and a government witness, Daniel McGill. We find that none of these statements, even if made in error, provides a basis for reversal. 120 Robinson first complains that the district court erroneously informed the jury that a non-testifying co-defendant, Kawyn Logan, had pleaded guilty to a felony. As the government points out, however, it is clear that the district judge simply misspoke, and that this error was immediately corrected. During the testimony of Daniel McGill, the court admitted McGill's plea agreement, and then addressed the jury as follows: 121 THE COURT: Now, members of the jury, you've heard proof here that Mr. Logan has pled guilty to a felony. You must not consider Mr. Logan's guilty plea to a felony as evidence that either Mr. Robinson or Mr. Brady joined in a conspiracy with Mr. Logan to commit a felony. Additionally, you must not consider Mr. Logan's guilty plea as evidence that either Mr. Robinson or Mr. Brady possessed cocaine and/or marijuana with the intent to distribute it. 122 Rather — and we're only talking only about this guilty plea now, nothing else about his testimony, but just the guilty plea part of his testimony; rather, you may consider Mr. Logan's guilty plea only in order to assess Mr. Logan's credibility as a witness for the government, and that's the only way you consider it. It's the only purpose for which it is introduced here. Okay. 123 Any other questions of this man? 124 GOVERNMENT COUNSEL: Yes, Your Honor. You're referring to Mr. McGill's plea agreement; is that correct? 125 THE COURT: Yeah. I'm sorry. Mr. McGill, McGill. I'm sorry. Mr. McGill. I misspoke. Mr. McGill, the man testifying here. I got him mixed up with Mr. Logan, who may testify later. McGill, Mr. Daniel McGill, the man seated right here, his plea. That's the only purpose for which you can consider it, to assess his credibility as a witness for the government, that purpose only, nothing else. 126 I'm sorry I misspoke. All right. 127 (6/5/2001 Trial Tr. at 39-40, J.A. at 684-85.) 128 Contrary to Robinson's contention, we do not view this passage as informing the jury that a non-testifying co-defendant, Logan, had pleaded guilty to a felony. Rather, a reasonable juror surely would assume, precisely as he was told, that the district court had erroneously referred to Logan instead of McGill. The district court immediately corrected its misstatement, and there is no reason to suspect that the jury disregarded this curative remark. Consequently, Robinson suffered no prejudice as a result of this mere and isolated slip of the tongue. 129 Robinson further contends, without citation to supporting authority, that the district court departed from its impartial role by purportedly instructing a government witness, Agent Stephen Ribolla, on how to give credible testimony. (Appellant Br. at 63.) On the occasion in question, the district court excused the jury during Agent Ribolla's cross-examination, in order to address a government objection to a line of questioning being pursued by defense counsel. After resolving this matter, and before the jury was returned to the courtroom, the district judge addressed Agent Ribolla: 130 THE COURT: You need to answer the questions asked by counsel. You don't need to volunteer extra, extra testimony unless you need to explain an answer. You need to be responsive, forthcoming. You're not an advocate here. 131 You've got to understand you're working for the people, and if you appear to be an advocate, you're not working for the people. It doesn't help your case one iota to appear to be prejudiced or an advocate in a situation. Much better to be just forthcoming about it. 132 If you don't know, you don't know. If it's something that helps the defendant, so be it. You don't make the facts, you're not here to make facts. That's the way the system works. Now, you're going to have to keep that in mind. 133 (6/15/2001 Trial Tr. at 67, J.A. at 1066.) 134 We find nothing so prejudicial in these remarks as to warrant reversal. It is unquestionably the duty of the district court to conduct the trial in an orderly way with a view to eliciting the truth and to attaining justice between the parties. United States v. Hickman, 592 F.2d 931, 933 (6th Cir.1979) (internal quotations and citations omitted). To the extent that the district judge directed Agent Ribolla to answer defense counsel's questions truthfully and without evasion or embellishment, he acted entirely within this proper role. Rather than giving impermissible advice to Agent Ribolla, it strikes us that the district court's instructions were an appropriate admonition as to the proper role and obligations of a government agent when he is called as a witness at trial. 135 Robinson next objects — once again, without citation to authority — to the district court's allegedly prejudicial comments and conduct toward defense counsel. Out of the many hours of testimony during a two-week trial, Robinson cites a brief period in which the trial court admonished defense counsel, in the presence of the jury, that he should move on from a question that had been asked and answered twice, and that he was standing next to and preaching to the jury, in violation of a local court rule that requires counsel to remain at the podium. (6/5/2001 Trial Tr. at 70, 76, J.A. at 715, 721.) In further addressing this latter issue, the district court stated to defense counsel that he was a good lawyer, but get carried away sometimes, and he cautioned counsel not to get smart with me now. ( Id. at 77, J.A. at 722.) 136 This single exchange in the midst of a contentious trial does not remotely approach the repeated expressions of partiality or bias that we have found necessary to warrant reversal. See, e.g., Hickman, 592 F.2d at 934-36. To the contrary, we view this as an understandable expression of the trial court's legitimate desire to retain control over the mode and manner of counsel's interrogation of a witness. See Fed.R.Evid. 611(a). Indeed, if a trial judge's isolated annoyance with counsel were grounds for a mistrial, it seems fair to say that many cases would never be tried to completion. Moreover, in its final instructions to the jury, the district court cautioned the jury not to interpret my rulings on [the attorneys'] objections as any indication of how I think this case should be decided, and emphasized that nothing that the court did during the course of the trial is to suggest or convey to you in any way or any manner as to what I think this verdict should be in this case. (6/18/2001 Trial Tr. at 113, 144, J.A. at 1154, 1185.) We presume that the jury heeded these instructions. Consequently, we find that this isolated incident, featuring brief and mild remarks rather than a harsh rebuke, did not result in any prejudice to Robinson's fair trial rights. 137 Finally, Robinson claims that he was prejudiced by a statement in Daniel McGill's testimony that [y]ou make sure you repent for your sins. (6/5/2001 Trial Tr. at 18, J.A. at 663.) Although Robinson contends that this remark was directed at him, it appears equally likely from the surrounding context that McGill was repeating a remark made to him by a voodoo priest in Brazil. Nor can Robinson plausibly say how the jury might have construed this testimony, where his counsel failed to object, and later acknowledged that he had not heard McGill's statement. ( See id. at 18, 26, J.A. at 663, 671.) More importantly, defense counsel declined the district court's offer of a curative instruction, and expressly agreed with the court's observation that any such instruction was likely only to emphasize a statement that the jury also might not have heard or understood. ( See id. at 27, J.A. at 672.) Under these circumstances, we find no error in the district court's handling of this incident. 138 3. Dena Carmichael's Testimony Regarding a Purported Instruction Not to Talk to Defense Counsel 139 As his final claim of prejudice at trial, Robinson challenges the district court's handling of Dena Carmichael's testimony that she was instructed by the government's counsel not to talk to Robinson's attorney (or anyone else) about the case. Specifically, Carmichael testified that I was told not to talk to anybody about this case, and that this instruction came from my lawyer for one, and the district attorney [ i.e., the Assistant U.S. Attorney] also told me that. (6/5/2001 Trial Tr. at 170, J.A. at 815.) Robinson argues that this instruction by government counsel interfered with his established right to interview witnesses. 140 As the government correctly points out, however, the district court promptly explored this matter in a voir dire examination of Carmichael outside the presence of the jury. During this examination, Carmichael clarified her earlier testimony, stating that her lawyer had instructed her not to talk to anyone about the case, but that the Assistant U.S. Attorney, as well as the two federal law enforcement officers on the case, had merely advised her that she didn't have to talk to anybody if she did not wish to. ( Id. at 178-79, J.A. at 823-24.) This testimony satisfied the district court that nothing improper had occurred. We find no basis to disturb the district court's resolution of this factual issue, nor has Robinson cited any authority indicating that the advice given by government counsel to Carmichael was improper. 141 E. The District Court Did Not Err in Its Jury Instructions. 142 Robinson next argues that the district court's instructions to the jury were erroneous in five different respects. Yet, as to all but one of these challenges, Robinson presents his arguments in wholly cursory fashion, without any citation to supporting authority. We have cautioned that [i]ssues adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation, are deemed waived, and that [i]t is not sufficient for a party to mention a possible argument in the most skeletal way, leaving the court to ... put flesh on its bones. McPherson v. Kelsey, 125 F.3d 989, 995-96 (6th Cir.1997) (internal quotations and citation omitted); see also United States v. Reed, 167 F.3d 984, 993 (6th Cir.1999) (invoking this rule to deem an issue forfeited). In any event, we have already addressed several of these issues — e.g., the question of a single versus multiple conspiracies, the characterization of Robinson's prior California conviction, and the claim of withdrawal from the conspiracy — and other contentions are contradicted by the record — e.g., the claim that the district court failed to inform the jury that its determinations as to drug quantities must be unanimous and beyond a reasonable doubt, ( see Verdict Form at 2, J.A. at 323 (requiring unanimous findings of drug quantities beyond a reasonable doubt)). 143 This leaves only Robinson's contention that the district court erroneously declined to present his proffered theory of defense to the jury, and instead stated this theory in a more summary fashion. Upon reviewing the record, however, we do not share Robinson's view that the district court's statement did nothing more than explain[ ] the significance of Robinson's not guilty plea. (Appellant Br. at 67.) Rather, we find that the district court's presentation captured the essence of Robinson's submission, and merely omitted certain unnecessary and repetitive details such as, for example, the contention that Dena Carmichael was not a truthful witness. We conclude, therefore, that the district court did not abuse its discretion in this matter. 144 F. A Remand Is Necessary for Resentencing. 145 Turning, finally, to the matter of sentencing, Defendant Robinson argues that the district court erred by sentencing him in absentia, and that the court also misapplied the Sentencing Guidelines in determining his sentence. We find no merit in the first of these challenges, but agree that the district court's application of the Sentencing Guidelines was deficient in one respect, and accordingly remand this case for resentencing. 39 1. Sentencing in Absentia 146 Shortly after trial and prior to his scheduled sentencing, Robinson escaped from federal custody at the Blount County Jail. The district court elected to proceed with sentencing in Robinson's absence, and declined to reopen this proceeding when Robinson was apprehended in Brazil about a week after the sentencing hearing. Robinson now contends that the district court erred in sentencing him in absentia, and in declining to convene another sentencing hearing after his counsel had an opportunity to address various sentencing matters with him while he remained in Brazilian custody. We review the district court's decision on this matter for clear error, see United States v. Watkins, 86 Fed.Appx. 934, 2004 WL 237412, at  (6th Cir. Feb.6, 2004), and find no such error here. 147 Under Fed.R.Crim.P. 43(b)(2), as it read at the time of Robinson's sentencing, the further progress of the trial to and including... the imposition of sentence, will not be prevented and the defendant will be considered to have waived the right to be present whenever a defendant, initially present at trial,... is voluntarily absent at the imposition of sentence. 40 At the November 28, 2001 sentencing hearing, the district court heard the testimony of a corrections officer regarding Robinson's July 12, 2001 escape from the Blount County Jail. Although defense counsel argued that this did not establish Robinson's voluntary absence from the sentencing hearing, the district court held otherwise, and this determination was not clearly erroneous. See Watkins, 86 Fed.Appx. 934, 2004 WL 237412, at - (upholding a finding of voluntary absence where the defendant was several hours late for a sentencing hearing, and where he previously had failed to regularly report to pretrial services as required under the terms of his release, resulting in a warrant for his arrest and the revocation of bond); United States v. Jordan, 216 F.3d 1248, 1249-50 (11th Cir.2000) (holding that the defendant was voluntarily absent where he escaped from custody following his guilty plea and remained at large on the date of his sentencing hearing). 148 Nonetheless, Robinson argues that he was no longer voluntarily absent at the imposition of sentence,  as required to find a waiver under Rule 43(b)(2), where he was apprehended a few days after the sentencing hearing and was in Brazilian custody by the time the district court formally entered its judgment on December 18, 2001. He has not cited any authority for this proposition, however, and we are not inclined to adopt a hypertechnical reading of Rule 43 that would deny the significance of a sentencing hearing. The Rule, after all, is addressed solely to the subject of a defendant's presence at various stages of a criminal proceeding, including sentencing. By specifying that voluntary absence operates as a waiver of the right to be present, the Rule plainly means to refer to proceedings that a defendant otherwise would be expected to attend. With regard to sentencing, the pertinent event is the hearing, at which a defendant is afforded the opportunity to address any issues relevant to his sentence. The entry of judgment, in contrast, is not such an occasion, and a defendant is not expected to be present at this time. Consequently, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court's determinations (i) that Robinson waived his right to be present at sentencing by virtue of his voluntary absence from the November 28 and 29, 2001 sentencing hearings, and (ii) that this right was not reinstated, and that the sentencing hearing need not be reconvened, as a result of Robinson's capture after the hearings but before the entry of judgment. 41 149 2. The District Court's Application of the Sentencing Guidelines 150 Robinson advances both legal and factual challenges to the district court's application of the Sentencing Guidelines in determining his sentence. We find no merit in his legal challenges, but agree that the trial court's factual findings are insufficient to sustain his sentence. 151 As his sole legal challenge, Robinson contends that the district court engaged in impermissible double counting by citing his escape from jail as a basis both for (i) denying a two-level downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, and (ii) applying a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. Yet, even assuming that double counting occurred here, we have observed that the Sentencing Guidelines expressly mandate double counting under some circumstances through the cumulative application of sentencing adjustments. United States v. Farrow, 198 F.3d 179, 194 (6th Cir.1999). More specifically, we have identified the precise situation presented here — namely, an escape from custody before trial or sentencing — as one in which the guidelines expressly contemplate using the same conduct to enhance a sentence and to deny a sentence reduction. United States v. Tevepaugh, 30 Fed.Appx. 330, 2002 WL 22029, at  (6th Cir. Jan.2, 2002). 152 Robinson does not dispute that his escape provides an appropriate basis for a two-level obstruction enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 — and, indeed, the application notes to § 3C1.1 expressly cite an escape before sentencing as an example of conduct warranting this enhancement. See U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, cmt. n. 4(e). Yet, having conceded this point, Robinson confronts the considerable obstacle that [c]onduct resulting in an enhancement under § 3C1.1 ... ordinarily indicates that the defendant has not accepted responsibility for his criminal conduct, and that it is only  extraordinary cases in which adjustments under both §§ 3C1.1 and 3E1.1 may apply. United States v. Angel, 355 F.3d 462, 477 (6th Cir.2004) (quoting U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, cmt. n. 4). Thus, the Sentencing Guidelines not only permit the double counting challenged by Robinson here, they dictate that this is the proper result in all but the most extraordinary cases. Robinson has not even attempted to suggest how his circumstances might qualify as extraordinary — and, in fact, even in the absence of his escape from custody, we are somewhat at a loss to see what action Robinson might have taken at any point in these proceedings that would reflect his acceptance of responsibility. See, e.g., United States v. Hough, 276 F.3d 884, 895 (6th Cir.2002) (While going to trial does not preclude such a decrease [for acceptance of responsibility], it certainly does not make denial of the decrease a reversible error.). We find no legal infirmity, therefore, in the enhancement of Robinson's sentence under § 3C1.1 and the denial of a downward adjustment under § 3E1.1. 153 Nonetheless, we agree with Robinson that the district court did not make the requisite factual findings in support of its application of the Sentencing Guidelines, and that a remand is necessary to rectify this omission. In the court below and again on appeal, Robinson has challenged the quantities of cocaine and marijuana for which he should be held responsible, the four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) for his role in the drug conspiracy offense, and the two-point increase in his criminal history under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d) for committing the drug conspiracy offense while still on probation for his California battery offense. In resolving these and other factual issues at sentencing, the district court stated: 154 THE COURT: What I am going to do shouldn't be much to your surprise. I am going to adopt the Presentence Report and the addendum, as will be amended.... I am going to adopt that in its entirety as part of the order of this court rather than go through all of it and read it off which would be just — you have already seen it. 155 (11/29/2001 Sentencing Hearing Tr. at 47-48, J.A. at 1286-87.) Later in the hearing, the district court reiterated: 156 THE COURT: I am adopting [the presentence] report on all those things. I have noticed other district judges do this and it saves them a lot of time and the attorneys a lot of time. The Court of Appeals has approved that.... I am going to start doing it too. I used to sit here and write a long opinion on it. Now all we do is adopt it because we were anyway for the most part. 157 ( Id. at 51, J.A. at 1290.) 158 As Robinson points out, Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(c)(1) provided, at the time of his sentencing, that [f]or each matter controverted, the court must make either a finding on the allegation or a determination that no finding is necessary because the controverted matter will not be taken into account in, or will not affect, sentencing. 42 We require literal compliance with this provision, in order to ensure that sentencing is based on reliable facts found by the court itself after deliberation, not on the delegation of the fact-finding process to the probation officer or the prosecution. United States v. Parrott, 148 F.3d 629, 633 (6th Cir.1998) (internal quotations and citation omitted). The law in this circuit clearly prohibits a court faced with a dispute over sentencing factors from adopting the factual findings of the presentence report without making factual determinations of its own. United States v. Monus, 128 F.3d 376, 396 (6th Cir.1997). 159 The district court's ruling at sentencing in this case ran afoul of this prohibition. Nonetheless, a remand is not necessary if this error was harmless — as would be true, for example, if the purportedly disputed factual issues could be conclusively resolved under the record before us. See, e.g., United States v. Carter, 374 F.3d 399, 408 (6th Cir.2004); Parrott, 148 F.3d at 633-34. We cannot say that the error here was clearly harmless, however. Rather, each of the above-cited factual issues can only be resolved by weighing the evidence, assessing the credibility of witnesses, and employing other fact-finding means that are unavailable in this appellate forum. Consequently, we remand this case for resentencing, at which time the district court can make rulings on these issues in accordance with the command of Rule 32. 43