Opinion ID: 532146
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Factual Inaccuracies in the Presentence Investigation

Text: 19 Report. 20 As his next assignment of error, Benefield alleges that in deciding his sentence, the district court took into account disputed facts in the presentence investigation report (PSI) that the government failed to prove by a preponderance of evidence. Appellant's Brief at 16. Specifically, the defendant challenges the court's conclusion that Benefield had received the warning letter from the Department of Agriculture. Id. at 17. After considering the record of the sentencing proceeding, we find this charge without merit. 21 In United States v. Restrepo, 832 F.2d 146, 148 (11th Cir.1987), this court held that disputed facts in a sentencing report must be shown by some reliable proof by which the trial court can conclude that it is not unlikely that the government's statements are true. The government easily met this burden. As the government notes, the question of whether the defendant received the letter is not the issue. The issue is whether Benefield received a warning from the Department of Agriculture. Although the defendant denies receiving both the telephone call and the letter, an employee of Benefield signed a receipt for the letter. In addition, the letter, since it was written as a confirmation of the telephone call, provides evidence that the call was actually received. 5 The only contrary evidence is the defendant's testimony which the district court did not find credible. We therefore find that the evidence was sufficient for the district court to conclude that it is not unlikely that the government's statements are true. 22