Opinion ID: 734535
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Terry Warren

Text: 7 The probation officer recommended a two-level adjustment for obstruction of justice based on Terry Warren's threat to Becky Dean and attempt to get Kelli Koontz and Becky Dean to leave Williamson so as to eliminate the possibility that they might give information to investigators. Terry Warren objected to the adjustment and denied either threatening Dean or attempting to get the women to leave but did not testify or offer evidence to rebut the information at sentencing. Although the government was prepared to present evidence, the district court did not ask to hear it and simply adopted the probation officer's recommended findings. 8 Terry Warren argues that, by not requiring the government to put on evidence, the court failed to resolve a contested issue and thus did not comply with Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(b)(6)(D). He suggests that the 1994 amendment to Rule 32 negates this Court's holding in United States v. Terry, 916 F.2d 157, 162 (4th Cir.1990), that a defendant must make an affirmative showing that disputed information in the presentence report is inaccurate. 9 The 1994 amendments to Rule 32 focused on preparation of the presentence report as a means of identifying and narrowing the issues to be decided at the sentencing hearing and reorganized the rule to reflect an appropriate sequential order in the sentencing procedures. Fed.R.Crim.P. 32 advisory committee's note. The amendments did not change the defendant's burden of putting on evidence to support a claim that information in the presentence report is inaccurate. Under the Rule, the district court may in its discretion hear evidence from the parties concerning a disputed issue but need not do so if the issue can be resolved without evidence. Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(c)(1). Therefore, the court did not err in dispensing with the government's evidence.