Opinion ID: 3061892
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Miller’s Request to Disclose Manning’s PSI

Text: The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Miller’s request to disclose coconspirator India Manning’s PSI.6 Generally, it is presumed that courts will not disclose the contents of the PSI of another individual because routinely doing so would have a “chilling effect on the willingness of various individuals to contribute information that will be incorporated into the report.” United States v. Gomez, 323 F.3d 1305, 1308 (11th Cir. 2003). Thus, a party who requests another’s PSI must “demonstrate a compelling, particularized need for disclosure.” Id. (quotations omitted). Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying access to Manning’s PSI because Miller failed to articulate with particularity any compelling need for the information contained therein. AFFIRMED. 5 Additionally, as the district court explained, the ripeness doctrine prevented the district court from considering the merits of Miller’s motion because, at the time Miller filed his motion, there was no pending plea agreement between the parties. See Nat’l Adver. Co. v. City of Miami, 403 F.3d 1335, 1339 (11th Cir. 2005). 6 We review a district court’s decision as to whether to disclose a PSI for abuse of discretion. United States v. Gomez, 323 F.3d 1305, 1307 (11th Cir. 2003). 7