Opinion ID: 745088
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Factual findings regarding the amount of drugs

Text: 26 The trial judge must sentence each conspirator on the basis of the quantity of drugs which [the conspirator] reasonably foresaw or which fell within 'the scope' of his particular agreement with the conspirators, rather than on the basis of the amount of drugs distributed by the conspiracy as a whole. United States v. Gutierrez-Hernandez, 94 F.3d 582, 585 (9th Cir.1996), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 752 (1997). The Sentencing Guidelines require an express factual finding by the trial court regarding the amount of drugs attributable to each conspirator being sentenced. Id. at 585. The court may adopt the calculations of the presentence report (PSR) to meet this requirment. United States v. Cazares, 112 F.3d 1391, 1396 (9th Cir.1997). 27 At the outset, we note that Barocio did not specifically object to the conclusion in the PSR regarding the amount of drugs for which he was to be held responsible. However, he did dispute all factual information involving or tending to involve him in intentionally and/or knowingly participating in the offenses. Assuming that this is an adequate objection, we conclude that the district court's findings of fact regarding the amount of drugs attributable to Barocio were sufficient. 28 The district court may adopt the factual findings of the probation officer as expressed in the PSR to satisfy the Rule 32 requirement, Cazares, 112 F.3d at 1396, and the court did so in this case. During Barocio's sentencing, the court stated, with regard to the presentence report: And we--before we go on to paragraph 36, with respect to all of the other paragraphs previously alluded to, the Court is adopting the factual statements contained in the presentence report as modified and I make those part of my findings of fact. The intention of the district court to adopt the findings of the PSR a part of the court's factual findings is reinforced by the court's indication of such an intention on the judgment form. 5 The district court's judgment stating that it adopted the conclusions of the PSR, along with its comments during sentencing hearing to that effect, are sufficient. 6 29 Gomez, on the other hand, makes two contentions: 1) the court failed to resolve his objections to certain facts contained in the PSR; and 2) the district court failed to make the required factual findings regarding the amount of drugs that Gomez could have reasonably foreseen as being part of the conspiracy. 7 30 Rule 32(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that, if a defendant challenges the factual accuracy of the PSR, then as to each matter challenged the court shall make a finding on the allegation or a determination that no finding is necessary because the controverted matter will not be taken into account in ... sentencing. The trial court should make clear on the record its resolution of all issues in the PSR that are disputed, and specific factual findlngs are encouraged. United States v. Rigby, 896 F.2d 392, 394 (9th Cir.1990). The district court may satisfy this requirement by adopting the conclusions in the PSR. United States v. Rosales, 917 F.2d 1220, 1222 (9th Cir.1990). 31 Gomez' contention that the district court failed to resolve the disputed matters in the PSR is without merit. Regarding Gomez' objections to the PSR, the district court stated: 32 The Court at this time adopts the presentencing--presentence report, and with respect to the issues which Mr. Arakaki on behalf of Mr. Gomez has raised, the Court was present at the--and presided over the trial, and just as the jury was persuaded as to the veracity of the testifying witnesses, the Court also is making a finding that the presentence report reflects the facts as they came before this Court and that the credibility of the witnesses--the Court is resolving in favor of the credibility of the witnesses relied on in the presentence report. 33 This statement indicates that the court did take Gomez' objections into consideration, but nevertheless adopted the conclusions in the PSR. 34 The district court also expressly adopted the conclusions in the PSR regarding the amount of drugs for which Gomez was responsible. The facts in the PSR supported Gomez' involvement as the primary supplier of methamphetamine for the conspiracy. See United States v. Hanoum, 33 F.3d 1128, 1132 (9th Cir.1994) (holding that the district court did not fail to make the required express factual findings, when the court expressly adopted the PSR and the facts in the PSR supported the conclusion reached by the court). The district court also started that the PSR reflects the facts as they came before this Court and that the court was resolving disputed issues in favor of the credibility of the witnesses. These findings of the district court regarding Gomez were sufficient. 35 AFFIRMED.