Opinion ID: 709965
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Enhancement for Use of Physical Restraint

Text: 42 The court increased Carma's sentence by two levels because Leonard and Stephen were physically restrained in the course of the crimes. U.S.S.G. Sec. 3A1.3. She argues that there is no evidence that she, as opposed to Ronald, restrained either child, and she timely objected to the presentence report. We review de novo the court's application of the sentencing guidelines. United States v. Navarro, 979 F.2d 786, 787 (9th Cir.1992). 43 When a defendant alleges factual inaccuracy in the presentence report the court must make a finding as to each matter controverted, and append these findings to the presentence report. Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(b)(3)(D). Strict compliance with the Rule is required. United States v. Fernandez-Angulo, 897 F.2d 1514, 1516 (9th Cir.1990) (en banc). If the district court fails to comply, the sentence must be vacated. Id. 44 Here, the court made a general finding at the sentencing hearing: I reject the idea that there was no tying and that. But at that point, it was considering Ronald's sentence; it made no specific finding regarding Carma's behavior or her participation in tying the victims. The court never expressly adopted the findings of the presentence report. Navarro, 979 F.2d at 789 (adoption of the presentence report satisfies Rule 32 if the presentence report is supported by facts or the guidelines). In the absence of a specific finding that Carma participated in restraining the boys, we vacate Carma's sentence and remand for resentencing.