Opinion ID: 162640
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Absence of Factual Findings.

Text: 129 United States Sentencing Guideline (U.S.S.G.) § 3B1.1(a) provides for an increase in offense level if the defendant was the organizer or leader of a criminal activity. Overholt objects to the application of this provision by the sentencing court because it failed to make specific findings of fact. He relies on Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(c)(1), which states that at the sentencing hearing, [ 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. (Emphasis added). 130 Overholt cannot invoke this rule, however, because he did not properly controvert the assertion that he was an organizer or leader. The probation office delivered Overholt's presentence report (PSR) to him on February 28, 2000. Yet he raised no objections to the PSR until his sentencing hearing on April 11, 2000—42 days later. Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(b)(6)(B), objections to the PSR must be submitted within 14 days of receipt; the probation office must then submit the PSR, together with an addendum responding to any unresolved objections, at least seven days before the sentencing hearing. Fed. R.Crim.P. 32(b)(6)(C). Because Overholt's objections were untimely, the sentencing court could properly proceed as if no objection had been made. The court was entitled to rely upon the PSR without making independent factual findings. See United States v. Hardwell, 80 F.3d 1471, 1500 (10th Cir.1996) (district court not required to hear government's objections to PSR first raised at sentencing hearing); United States v. Chung, 261 F.3d 536, 538-39 (5th Cir.2001) (district court not required to hear defendant's objections to PSR first raised at sentencing hearing). 131