Opinion ID: 656510
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Comply with Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(3)(D)

Text: 5 Rule 32(c)(3)(D) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides a means for a defendant to ensure that his presentence investigation report (PSI or report) is factually accurate and that a record of the resolution of disputed facts is available: 6 If the comments of the defendant and the defendant's counsel or testimony or other information introduced by them allege any factual inaccuracy in the presentence investigation report or the summary of the report or part thereof, the court shall, as to each matter controverted, make (i) a finding as to the allegation, or (ii) a determination that no such finding is necessary because the matter controverted will not be taken into account in sentencing. A written record of such findings and determinations shall be appended to and accompany any copy of the presentence investigation report thereafter made available to the Bureau of Prisons. 7 Watson's objections to portions of the presentence report are listed in an addendum to the report. Among other objections, Watson denied that he  'coordinated the transportation of the cocaine around security at the airport' or that he was 'a middle man between Comer and the suppliers.'  The trial court failed to either make a finding as to the controverted matters in the PSI or a determination that no such finding was necessary. 8 Citing United States v. Emanuel, 869 F.2d 795 (4th Cir. 1989), the district court held that Watson waived this claim by not raising it on direct appeal. In this Circuit, a defendant waives most nonconstitutional Rule 32 errors by failing to raise them on direct appeal. Emanuel, 869 F.2d at 796. However, a district court's failure to append findings about disputed portions of the presentence report can be raised in a § 2255 motion. See United States v. Miller, 871 F.2d 488, 489 & n.1 (4th Cir. 1989). Because the district court failed to make a determination as to the controverted matter, and therefore did not append its findings to the PSI, we vacate the district court's order dismissing this claim, and remand so that the district court can make a determination, reduce it to writing, and direct the probation officer to attach the written findings to the PSI. See Miller, 871 F.2d at 489.