Opinion ID: 536890
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Use of Erroneous Information

Text: 8 In challenging, on due process grounds, information used in sentencing appellant must show (1) that the information was false or unreliable and (2) that the sentencing judge relied, at least in part, on this information. Id. at 327 (citing Farrow v. United States, 580 F.2d 1339, 1359 (9th Cir.1978) (en banc)). Appellant has failed to carry this burden. Judge Keep's comments do not indicate, as Wells suggests, that the probation officer felt that appellant's point total was inaccurate or that an upward departure was warranted. She appears instead to have stated that Wells' extensive criminal history and repeated incarceration, which were noted by the probation officer in the presentence report, 1 were not fully reflected in the point system and would justify an upward departure. There is nothing false or unreliable about that statement. 9 Even if the district court were to have misconstrued the report, appellant could not prevail since the judge's comments indicate that the decision to sentence at the upper end of the Guidelines was not based on any such misapprehension. As noted above, Judge Keep expressly indicated that it was the pendency of appellant's sentencing for a similar crime in state court which was dispositive in this regard. 10 For the foregoing reasons, appellant's due process claim is without merit and the decision of the lower court is affirmed. 11 AFFIRMED.