Opinion ID: 555459
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Validity of Eddie Ayers' Sentence

Text: 68 Eddie Ayers contends that the district court improperly considered statements in the presentence report that he was involved in drug trafficking. He argues that he challenged the accuracy of this information but that the district court failed to make a factual finding regarding the disputed report as required by Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Consideration of evidence outside the record of conviction for sentencing purposes is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. FTC v. American National Cellular, 868 F.2d 315, 322 (9th Cir.1989). Reliance on materially false or unreliable information is an abuse of discretion. Id. If the court did not rely on the inaccurate information, the sentence will be affirmed. Oxborrow v. Eikenberry, 877 F.2d 1395, 1400 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 344, 107 L.Ed.2d 332 (1989). 69 Review of the entire transcript from Eddie Ayers' sentencing hearing reveals that the district court did not consider any of the presentence report's references to drugs in imposing Eddie's sentence. In fact, the court reassured Eddie's counsel by saying certainly no portion of the prosecution version [of the presentence report] is going to be taken into account in terms of the sentence I will be imposing today.... Counsel for Eddie Ayers responded I think that that's--that's very good, your Honor. 70 The district court's statement that it would not consider the prosecution version of the presentence report satisfied the substantive requirements of Rule 32. The court also ordered redaction and correction of the presentence report to reflect the orders of the court made at the sentencing hearing. The redaction order invited objections to the corrected reports to be filed within five days of receipt by the parties. The record does not reflect any objection by Eddie Ayers or his defense counsel. 71 Eddie Ayers argues, however, that even though the court indicated that it would not consider the prosecution's version of the presentence report, references to drug involvement were also presented in other portions of the presentence report which the court did consider. The entire issue of drug trafficking was discussed at the sentencing hearing. Eddie's counsel urged the court to treat this as a tax case, and not to treat it as something different. The court responded to this request by saying, No, it's a tax case. That's what's before me. The record demonstrates that the district court did not rely on the information which Eddie Ayers claims was inaccurate and improper. 72