Opinion ID: 1267469
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reliance on Contested and Unproven Allegations in the PSR

Text: Davis contends the district court relied upon a number of contested factual matters set forth in the [PSR] when imposing Davis's sentence. Davis claims the government failed to offer any evidence in support of these contested matters, and thus the district court's consideration of these matters was improper. Because Davis did not object at sentencing to the district court's reliance on the factual allegations in the PSR, we review this argument for plain error. See United States v. Long, 532 F.3d 791, 796 (8th Cir.2008) (citation omitted) (An argument raised for the first time on appeal is reviewed for plain error only.). `[U]nless a defendant objects to a specific factual allegation contained in the PSR, the court may accept that fact as true for sentencing purposes.' United States v. Razo-Guerra, 534 F.3d 970, 975 (8th Cir.2008) (quoting United States v. Moser, 168 F.3d 1130, 1132 (8th Cir.1999)). When the defendant so objects and the relevant responsive evidence has not already been produced at trial, `the government must present evidence at the sentencing hearing to prove the existence of the disputed facts.' United States v. Wintermute, 443 F.3d 993, 1005 (8th Cir.2006) (quoting United States v. Poor Bear, 359 F.3d 1038, 1041 (8th Cir.2004)). [W]e require that objections to the PSR be made `with specificity and clarity' before a district court is precluded from relying on the factual statements contained in the PSR. Razo-Guerra, 534 F.3d at 976 (citing United States v. Wajda, 1 F.3d 731, 732 (8th Cir.1993)). The reason we require specific objections is to put the Government on notice of the challenged facts which the government will need to prove at the sentencing hearing. Id. (internal citation omitted). Davis maintains the district court relied upon the contested, but unproven, factual allegations in paragraphs 48, 49, 57, and 58 of the PSR. [4] The paragraphs cited by Davis constitute the criminal history portion of the PSR and recite Davis's juvenile adjudications and adult criminal convictions. With respect to these paragraphs, Davis made the following objection: ¶¶ 48-87: Mr. Davis does not concede the accuracy of any of the summaries of the offense conduct for the offenses listed in the offense conduct section. Davis's vague, blanket objection was not made with sufficient specificity and clarity to put the Government on notice of the specific portions of the PSR Davis was contesting. See Razo-Guerra, 534 F.3d at 976. Additionally, Davis does not challenge the convictions themselves. The district court rightly relied upon the contested paragraphs when reciting Davis's various prior convictions, and with few exceptions recited only the convictions and not the underlying facts. We find no error, plain or otherwise, in the district court's adoption of the allegations in the PSR.