Opinion ID: 199256
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sawyer's Objections to the Prepleading Report

Text: 55 We must first address Sawyer's argument that his objections to the PPR prior to the plea hearing prevented the government from relying on that document to establish the requisite factual basis for the plea. In the addendum to the PPR, Sawyer stated the following objection: 56 Defendant contends that the one count information, and any other conduct specifically related to the underlying offense, provides all of the necessary and appropriate information for determining the relevant conduct and requisite base offense level under § 2F1.1. Specifically, defendant contends that the only relevant conduct for purposes of the Pre-sentence Report and the court's sentencing is an expenditure he made over the 1990, Fourth of July weekend. 57 Sawyer cites Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(c)(1), and our decision in United States v. Van, 87 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1996), for the proposition that the district court should have ruled on his objection to the PPR as an outstanding or disputed material fact prior to sentencing. Because the district court made no such ruling to resolve his objection, he argues, the conduct described in the PPR could not have been considered part of the factual basis of his guilty plea. However, as the plain meaning of his objection, quoted above, indicates, Sawyer was merely objecting to the conduct to be considered by the court in sentencing, and not to the conduct the court might consider in finding a sufficient factual basis for Sawyer's guilty plea. Significantly, Sawyer did not object to the government's reliance on the conduct described in paragraphs ten through 30 of the PPR to establish the requisite factual predicate for his plea. 16