Opinion ID: 780297
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Objections to the Presentence Report

Text: 19 Wiant argues that he was sentenced based on unreliable evidence that his actions caused a temporary reduction in Franklin County, Ohio's charitable donations to the American Cancer Society. He speculates that although the matter was not relied upon to set the sentencing range, and is nowhere specifically mentioned as a factor in sentencing, the court may have considered it as a factor in setting Wiant's sentence within the guideline range. 5 20 The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure require sentencing courts to rule on all unresolved objections to the presentence report. FED. R.CRIM. PRO. 32(c)(1). In so ruling, the court may make either a finding on the allegation or a determination that no finding is necessary because the controverted matter will not be taken into account in, or will not affect, sentencing. Id. This circuit requires literal compliance with this provision. United States v. Tackett, 113 F.3d 603, 613 (6th Cir.1997). Here, the district court chose to make a finding on the allegation rather than deciding it was unnecessary to the sentencing decision. Wiant argues that the district court's finding is not supportable. 6 21 Rule 32(c)(1) `prohibits a court faced with a dispute over sentencing factors from adopting the factual findings of the presentence report without making factual determinations of its own.' United States v. Bennett, 291 F.3d 888, 899 (6th Cir.2002) (quoting United States v. Parrott, 148 F.3d 629, 633 (6th Cir.1998)); see also Tackett, 113 F.3d at 613-14. The sentencing court did not do much of an independent inquiry, but neither did it merely adopt the factual findings of the presentence report. The court independently determined that the allegations in the presentence report were credible. Although this circuit has been vigilant in demanding thorough analysis when sentencing courts are dealing with a hotly contested factual question, Tackett, 113 F.3d at 614, the issue of whether Wiant's actions caused a reduction in Franklin County's donations was the opposite of hotly contested. Wiant himself did not even raise the issue in the sentencing hearing; the government lawyer brought the unresolved objection to the court's attention. At the hearing, Wiant agreed that the objection was irrelevant because it had no effect on the Sentencing Guidelines, and expressed very little interest in pursuing his objection. Although Wiant weakly reiterated his position that the reduction in donations was merely speculative, he offered no reason whatsoever to contradict the evidence in the presentence report, and the sentencing judge found it credible. (J.A. at 185). The Sentencing Guidelines and this circuit's case law have set a low bar for the kinds of evidence sentencing judges may rely on to decide factual issues at sentencing. See U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3(a) (sentencing judge may consider relevant information without regard to its admissibility under the rules of evidence applicable at trial, provided that the information has sufficient indicia of reliability.); United States v. Greene, 71 F.3d 232, 235 (6th Cir.1995) (noting that this court has set a relatively low hurdle for showing indicia of reliability). Wiant has given this court no reason to think that the district court was wrong in finding the evidence in the presentence report credible and sufficiently reliable. In light of these particular circumstances, the district court's treatment of this issue, however cursory, was not grounds for reversal. 22 Based on the forgoing analysis, we AFFIRM the defendant's sentence.