Opinion ID: 170238
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Extraordinary Physical Impairment

Text: We next consider whether the district court failed to make adequate findings with respect to whether Mr. Chee had an extraordinary physical impairment at the time of his sentencing that would justify a downward departure from the sentencing guidelines. United States v. Slater, 971 F.2d 626, 635 (10th Cir.1992) (quotation omitted). Mr. Chee argues that the district court did not make adequate findings with respect to his age and physical condition under U.S.S.G. § 5H1.1 and U.S.S.G. § 5H1.4, respectively. Aplt. Br. at 28. Alternatively, if this court finds that he did not raise this issue below, Mr. Chee argues that we should still review it because trial counsel's failure to raise the issue created an impediment to the district court's ability to address it, the result of which was manifest injustice. Id. at 31 n. 1. [2] We review compliance with the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure de novo. United States v. Rodriguez-Delma, 456 F.3d 1246, 1253 (10th Cir.2006). Rule 32(i)(3)(B) states that a sentencing 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. The district court may accept any undisputed portion of the presentence report as a finding of fact. Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(i)(3)(A). [T]o invoke the district court's Rule 32 fact-finding obligation, the defendant is required to make `specific allegations' of factual inaccuracy. Rodriguez-Delma, 456 F.3d at 1253. An objection to the ultimate conclusions in the presentence report does not necessarily imply that a controverted matter exists. Id. Mr. Chee had an affirmative duty to make a showing that the information in the [presentence report] was unreliable and articulate the reasons why the facts contained therein were untrue or inaccurate. Id. at 1254 (quoting United States v. Terry, 916 F.2d 157, 162 (4th Cir.1990)) (internal edit omitted). In this case, after a careful review of the record, we believe that the issue was not raised before the district court. Mr. Chee's trial counsel did request a departure from the sentencing guidelines for diminished capacity at the time of the crime under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.13, both in her written objections to the presentence report and at the sentencing hearing. [3] I Aplt.App. at 69; IV Aplt.App. at 550. This was the sole focus of Mr. Chee's trial counsel's argument for a downward departure, and U.S.S.G. § 5H1.1 and U.S.S.G. § 5H1.4 were never mentioned. IV Aplt. App. at 547-59. Mr. Chee's trial counsel made two scattered statements at the sentencing hearing about how anything more than five or six years is likely going to be a life in prison sentence for Mr. Chee and that he is physically compromised and mentally compromised, id. at 550-51, but these alone do not constitute specific allegations of factual inaccuracy in the presentence report necessary to invoke the district court's Rule 32 fact-finding obligation. Rodriguez-Delma, 456 F.3d at 1253. Mr. Chee's argument under U.S.S.G. § 5H1.1 and U.S.S.G. § 5H1.4 was simply not raised below. Moreover, the district court felt no need to resolve this issue: Whatever is going on, and I've read the reports, with Mr. Chee now, I don't know that that would be diminished capacity now. IV Aplt.App. 559. A reduced sentence based on these grounds, whether a departure or a variance, would have required factual findings by the district court. In these circumstances, we consider the issue waived and will not find plain error. [4] United States v. Overholt, 307 F.3d 1231, 1253 (10th Cir.2002). Mr. Chee further argues that if we find that the issue was not raised, we should still review it on appeal under our precedent because the trial counsel's ambiguous argument impeded the trial court from addressing the issue. Aplt. Br. at 31 n. 1. This argument misses the point. Issues not raised in the district court will not be considered for the first time on appeal when . . . `there is no showing of an impediment to the appellant that precluded his raising the issue.' United States v. Lotspeich, 796 F.2d 1268, 1271 (10th Cir. 1986) (quoting United States v. Mitchell, 783 F.2d 971, 975 (10th Cir.1986)). The question is not whether the trial court was impeded, but whether Mr. Chee was, and he presents nothing that precluded his raising the issue. Id. We therefore re fuse to address Mr. Chee's argument with respect to U.S.S.G. § 5H1.1 and U.S.S.G. § 5H1.4.