Opinion ID: 200606
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Post-Sentence Report

Text: 70 Appellants Manuel 11 and Batíz argue that the trial court erred when it sentenced them without the benefit of an updated PSR. Initial PSRs for Manuel and Batíz were prepared by the Probation Office on April 20, 1999. Because of various post-trial motions, including some based on Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), their sentencing was postponed until December 2001. Manuel and Batíz also lodged several objections to the PSR's calculations. At their sentencing, they objected to a murder cross-reference on Count I, and, in the case of Manuel, certain findings regarding Count II. As indicated in Part IV.A, supra, however, the court ultimately did not apply a murder cross-reference on Count I, and with regard to Manuel's sentencing, the court made no findings on Count II since the court grouped that count with Count I. A month after the court had imposed its sentence, the probation office issued updated PSRs that no longer reflected the murder cross-reference. Manuel and Batíz claim that, as a result of the issuance of this Post-Sentence Report (as they call it), they are entitled to be resentenced. 71 The version of Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in effect at the time of sentencing provided in pertinent part: 72 The probation officer must make a presentence investigation and submit a report to the court before the sentence is imposed, unless: 73 (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 74 (B) the court explains this finding on the record. 75 Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(b)(1) (2001). Section 6A1.1 of the Guidelines contains almost identical language. 76 Our examination of the sentencing transcript reveals that the sentencing court complied with these requirements. At the sentencing hearing the court indicated that it was setting the offense levels on Count I based on its recollections of the evidence presented at trial, and on the factual findings contained in the original PSRs. The court was aware of the defendants' objections to those factual findings, and the court overruled them. As explained above, the court ignored the PSRs' cross-referencing of murder. The fact that a subsequent PSR, completed post-sentencing, reflected the court's decision, is simply irrelevant. The court had sufficient information before it to exercise its sentencing authority meaningfully, and we therefore affirm the sentences imposed.