Opinion ID: 2620502
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Requirement for an Evidentiary Hearing

Text: Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 provides that the District Court “must – for any disputed portion of the presentence report or other controverted matter – rule on the dispute or determine that a ruling is unnecessary either because the matter will not affect sentencing, or because the court will not consider the matter in sentencing … .” Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(3)(B). “When a defendant disputes facts included in a presentence report, Rule 32([i])(3)([B]) … requires a sentencing court to resolve those disputes or to determine that it will not rely on the disputed facts in sentencing.” United States v. Gomez, 831 F.2d 453, 455 (3d Cir. 1987). 8 Bigica contends that, because he objected to paragraph 232 of the PSR, which contained an analysis of his financial condition and a representation that he had not been fully cooperative, he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing so the Court could rule on disputed facts. 8 That is not correct. Rule 32 does not make an evidentiary hearing mandatory; it only requires the District Court to either make a finding as to the disputed facts or expressly disclaim use of the disputed facts in sentencing. United States v. Furst, 918 F.2d 400, 408 (3d Cir. 1990). The Court here complied with that rule. At the beginning of the sentencing hearing, the Court specifically asked Bigica whether there were any factual errors or omissions contained within the PSR that needed to be addressed. He responded that there were factual inaccuracies, and the Court proceeded to either make findings regarding those alleged inaccuracies or state that it would not consider those facts. Bigica did not, however, state that there was a factual error with respect to the contents of paragraph 232 of the PSR. Moreover, at the sentencing hearing, the Court specifically asked Bigica to present his case as to why the PSR was not correct and why he should receive an acceptance of responsibility reduction. Tellingly, Bigica fails to address in meaningful fashion the following statement from the Court: Here, the conduct of the defendant post plea that has been of concern to the Court, and which I have amply given the defendant and his counsel time and the opportunity to address, is first and foremost the compliance with the request of the United States Probation Office and recognition and honoring the promise made at the plea agreement of full 8 Bigica does not indicate what evidence he would have presented at an evidentiary hearing, beyond financial documents that had already been submitted to the District Court. 9 restitution. The presentence report is replete with multiple examples that go far beyond any claim of mistake or error in judgment or an excusable neglect in not supplying complete and accurate information in his initial personal financial statements to the [P]robation [O]ffice. (App. at 202.) The Court thus considered Bigica’s contested facts and decided not to draw the inferences he wished from those facts. Simply put, Bigica characterized the facts in the PSR differently, and the Court, after giving time for argument, found Bigica’s characterization unworthy of credence. There was no error in the sentencing procedure.