Opinion ID: 764418
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Evidence Relied on at Resentencing

Text: 28 Triestman argues that the district court violated Rule 32(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by resentencing him without an updated PSR. Rule 32(b) provides: Presentence Investigation and Report 29 (1) When Made. The probation officer must make a presentence investigation and submit a report to the court before the sentence is imposed, unless: 30 (A) the court finds that the information in the record enables it to exercise its sentencing authority meaningfully under 18 U.S.C. § 3553; and 31 (B) the court explains this finding on the record. 32 Triestman argues that the district court violated this rule by resentencing him in reliance on his original PSR, which was more than five years old at the time of his resentencing. 33  'Generally, issues not raised in the trial court, including sentencing issues, will be deemed waived on appeal in the absence of plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights.'  United States v. Margiotti, 85 F.3d 100, 104 (2d Cir.1996) (per curiam) (quoting United States v. Liebman, 40 F.3d 544, 551(2d Cir.1994)). In order to preserve a sentencing issue for appeal, a defendant must either object to the PSR or raise the objection at the time of sentencing. See United States v. Altman, 901 F.2d 1161, 1165 (2d Cir.1990). Triestman, however, failed to object to the district court's reliance on his original PSR, either at his resentencing hearing or at any other time before this appeal. 34 In any event, we find no error--let alone plain error--in the district court's use of Triestman's original PSR. See United States v. Yu-Leung, 51 F.3d 1116, 1121 (2d Cir.1995) ([T]he error must be so plain [that] the trial judge and prosecutor were derelict in countenancing it, even absent the defendant's timely assistance in detecting it. (internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original)). Although Rule 32(b) generally requires an initial PSR before sentencing, we have recently held that this rule does not [similarly] mandate that the district court in all circumstances require an updated PSR in the event of resentencing. United States v. Conhaim, 160 F.3d 893, 896 (2d Cir.1998). When, for example, a court holds a resentencing hearing at which the parties are given a full opportunity to be heard and to supplement the PSR as needed, courts need not order or rely on an updated PSR. Id. 35 In the present case, the district court held a hearing on February 26, 1998 to address outstanding resentencing issues. At the hearing, Triestman's attorney indicated that Triestman had not been involved in any difficulties or infractions during his incarceration and that he had been given out custody status, which permitted him to work outside the prison unsupervised. Triestman also testified that he had taught several classes in prison, that he had attended a 40-hour drug treatment course, and that he intended upon release to avoid all contact with drugs and to seek work in contracting, technical writing and computers. The court concluded from this evidence, as well as from a record of some of Triestman's activities in prison provided by the government, 5 that Triestman had been a good prisoner with a couple minor infractions. Under these circumstances, Triestman had an adequate opportunity to be heard and to supplement his PSR as needed before his resentencing. We therefore reject Triestman's argument that the district court violated Rule 32(b) by failing to order an updated PSR.