Opinion ID: 1236530
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The District Court's Loss Determination at Sentencing

Text: At sentencing, Ross objected to the probation office's presentence report finding that the intended loss from the two counts of bank fraud totaled $634,300. Ross argued the intended loss was zero and that the government failed to prove he intended any loss. The district court rejected Ross's argument and adopted the presentence report's finding that the intended loss was $634,300. The district court gave the following statement on the record in support of its rejection of Ross's objection to the intended loss amount: It seems that the jury heard the evidence, and the jury made up their mind as to what is credible. That's why we have a guilty verdict on both counts. So at this point I think that the total offense level of 21 is an accurate calculation furnished by the probation office.... This Court has held that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(3)(B) requires the district court at sentencing to rule on any disputed portion of the presentence report or other controverted matter. United States v. White, 492 F.3d 380, 415 (6th Cir.2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, if the defendant raises a dispute to the presentence report, the court may not merely summarily adopt the factual findings in the presentence report or simply declare that the facts are supported by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Solorio, 337 F.3d 580, 598 (6th Cir.2003) (internal citations omitted). Rather, the district court must affirmatively rule on a controverted matter where it could potentially impact the defendant's sentence; that is, the district court must actually find facts, and it must do so by a preponderance of the evidence. White, 492 F.3d at 415-416. We require this literal compliance with Rule 32(i)(3)(B) because it enhanc[es] the accuracy of the sentence and the clarity of the record. United States v. Treadway, 328 F.3d 878, 886 (6th Cir. 2003). Here, the district court failed to make any factual findings on the record in support of its intended loss calculation. Rather, the district court simply embraced the figures set forth in the presentence report over Ross's objections. [R]eliance on the [presentence report] is insufficient when the facts are in dispute. Treadway, 328 F.3d at 886. Accordingly, we find the district court erred in failing to explain its determination with actual factual findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence that the intended loss amounted to $634,300.