Court Opinion

ID: 9486124
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 11:38:20.454235+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:51:32.134686
License: Public Domain

HEANEY, Senior Circuit Judge,
concurring and dissenting.
I concur in the court’s opinion insofar as it holds that the PSR provided Beatty sufficient notice of the possibility of an upward departure and that the departure itself was not the product of double-counting. I find the other issues regarding the PSR and the government’s breach of the plea agreement considerably more troubling than does the majority, however, and am therefore compelled to dissent.
I
In 1983 the Judicial Council’s Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules recommended amendments to Rule 32, including the addition of subdivision (c)(3)(D), which “requires the sentencing court, as to each matter controverted, either to make a finding as to the accuracy of the challenged factual proposition or to determine that no reliance will be placed on that proposition at the time of sentencing.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(c)(3)(D) advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment. This “entirely new” provision was needed because both “the Bureau of Prisons and the Parole Commission made substantial use of the presentence investigation report” prior to the amendment. Id. That practice resulted
in reliance upon assertions of fact in the report in the making of critical determinations relating to custody or parole. For example, it is possible that the Bureau or Commission, in the course of reaching a decision on such matters as institution assignment, eligibility for programs, or computation of salient factors, will place great reliance upon factual assertions in the report which are in fact untrue and which remained unchallenged at the time of sentencing because defendant or his counsel deemed the error unimportant in the sentencing context (e.g., where the sentence was expected to conform to an earlier plea agreement, or where the judge said he would disregard certain controverted matter in setting the sentence).
The first sentence of new subdivision. (c)(3)(D) is intended to ensure that a record is made as to exactly what resolution occurred as to controverted matter.
Id,1
Our court, along with many other courts, has required “strict compliance” with Rule 32(c)(3)(D). See United States v. Coleman, 990 F.2d 419, 421-22 (8th Cir.1993); United States v. Conkins, 987 F.2d 564, 573 (9th Cir.1993); United States v. Villasenor, 977 F.2d 331, 339 (7th Cir.1992), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 113 S.Ct. 1340, 122 L.Ed.2d 723 (1993); United States v. Wilfred Am. Educ. Corp., 953 F.2d 717, 721 n. 7 (1st Cir.1992). Judge Phillips explained in United States v. Daniel, 3 F.3d 775 (4th Cir.1993), that “Rule 32(c)(3)(D)’s command is prophylactic in nature,” and we will therefore “remedy any failure to comply with it, whether or not the district court actually resolved the issue and whether or not any identifiable harm was suffered_” Id. at 780.
Despite this understanding of the rule, the majority allows it to be twice breached. *693First, the court allows the statement that Beatty was a suspect in his co-conspirator’s murder to remain in the PSR despite the sentencing court’s failure either to take evidence on the issue or to indicate that it would not rely upon the statement. Second, the court holds the sentencing court’s clear error — relying on the PSR as evidence in making findings over Beatty’s objections — harmless because it does not appear to have affected the sentence. The latter determination is not ours to make, but even if it were, we would still be obligated to remand because of the effect the PSR has on Beatty’s treatment by the Bureau of Prisons.
In ruling that the sentencing court need not “edit” the PSR to satisfy Beatty,’ the majority relies on our decision in United States v. Johnson, 767 F.2d 1259, 1276 (8th Cir.1985). There we held that a sentencing court “has no obligation ... to strike any material from the [PSR]. It need go no further than stating that a controverted matter will not be considered in sentencing.”2 Yet in this case, the sentencing court did not rule that it would disregard the information regarding Van Slooten’s death — stating quite to the contrary that the court needed the information in order to understand all of the circumstances stemming from the offense— nor did it make the necessary findings of the statement’s accuracy.
The finding of harmless error is equally égregious. Whether a sentencing court’s failure to comply with Rule 32(c)(3)(D) affects the sentence or not — a finding I am entirely unsure we are competent to make— misses the point. Rule 32 is, as Judge Phillips has indicated, “prophylactic in nature.” We have required strict compliance with the rule “because of the great reliance placed on presentence investigation reports by courts and the Bureau of Prisons.” United States v. Garbett, 867 F.2d 1132, 1136 (8th Cir.1989). As our court leaves this matter, the Bureau of Prisons will receive the sentencing court’s findings that paragraphs 11,12, and 18 of the PSR are accurate. The only basis for these findings was the PSR, and, as the majority notes, we have repeatedly held that the PSR cannot be treated as evidence when an objection is made. The majority’s ruling undermines the rationale for the rule and disregards our previous statements on this issue. Under our existing case law, we are required to remand this ease to the district court with *694directions that it strictly comply with the mandate of Rule 32(c)(3)(D).
II
The majority also finds that Beatty has failed to adequately preserve his allegation that the government violated its agreement not to move for an upward departure. The court’s ruling rests on an examination of a fragment of the sentencing transcript. Having found no objection at the close of the government’s remarks, the court rules that the issue was not preserved. This ruling ignores Beatty’s earlier assertions on this point, assertions he could reasonably have felt it to be futile to repeat.
The sentencing transcript consists of only thirty-six pages, much of which is boilerplate. The statement by the government to which Beatty objects occurs on pages 13 and 14. By this point Beatty’s counsel had already been informed by the sentencing judge that he intended to depart upward. Sent.Tr. at 3. Counsel responded with surprise:
Your Honor, I have not addressed this matter in writing before, because it was part of the plea agreement, that Ms. de la Vega and I entered into, that she would not make a motion for an upward departure — and of course I recognize the inherent power of the court to do so on its own — nevertheless, I have supplied extensive written materials to the court on just about every issue, save this one.-
Id. at 3 — 1. Counsel then asked for a continuance to allow him to respond to this- in writing. The court denied his request, finding both that the PSR provided adequate notice and that counsel had already addressed the relevant issues, though not in the context of an upward departure, and had “done an excellent job in setting those matters forth.” Id. at 6.
Beatty’s counsel then set forth his arguments against departure, and the court asked the government if it wished to respond. The government then set forth its litany regarding the victims of Beatty’s crimes and closed by asking for a “substantial sentence.” Id. at 14. Had this statement been made in a context other than in response to a request to comment on the issue of upward departure, it would not have been problematic. It is precisely because the statement was made in that context, however, that it constitutes a breach of the plea agreement. The government was obligated simply to respond that it had agreed not to seek an upward departure. It would have been permissible for it to add that it did not feel a departure was appropriate, had that been the case, though it would not have been obligated to do so. To say anything in favor of a departure would clearly breach the agreement.
I believe that Beatty did adequately preserve this issue for our review. Beatty had informed the court of the government’s obligation under the plea agreement and yet the court asked the government to respond to its intention to impose an upward departure. It may be that the court would have imposed the same sentence regardless of what the government said, but there can be no question that the court knew of the government’s agreement and yet it allowed the government to violate that agreement. I see no reason why, under these circumstances, we should not review this issue under the “clearly erroneous” standard rather than under plain error. I find clear error and would remand for resentencing in compliance with the plea agreement.
Ill
There is no excuse for the district court’s failure to comply with Rule 32(c)(3)(D) or to see that the plea agreement was enforced. In neither case is the burden an onerous one, and the potential harm to an inmate, particularly from failure to comply with Rule 32, is great. How we can hope for compliance with a prophylactic rule such as Rule 32 when we excuse noncompliance is beyond me, and I therefore dissent.

. The Advisory Committee also referred to its earlier discussion of the significance of the PSR in the Bureau of Prisons' determinations. For example, the Committee noted, "[i]f the defendant is incarcerated, the presentence report accompanies him to the correctional institution and provides background information for the Bureau of Prisons' classification summary, which, in turn, determines the defendant's classification within the facility, his ability to obtain furloughs, and the choice of treatment programs." Fed. R.Crim.P. 32(a)(1) advisory committee note to 1983 amendment (quoting Fennell & Hall, Due Process at Sentencing: An Empirical and Legal Analysis of the Disclosure of Presentence Reports in Federal Courts, 93 Harv.L.Rev. 1613, 1651 (1980)).

. I do not agree that the district court is under no duty to delete irrelevant, potentially harmful information from the PSR, but such is the ruling of our court. X particularly question the validity of that ruling because it rests, as have other courts’ rulings, on the availability of 28 C.F.R. § 2.19(c) to someone in Beatty's position. The problem with this answer is that this administrative proceeding exists under the auspices of the parole board, and given that parole was eliminated when the guidelines were implemented, the significant collateral effect of such erroneous material in PSRs is within the Bureau of Prisons.
This issue was set forth with great clarity in the University of Wisconsin Law Review:
A defendant who wishes to have his or her PSI corrected ... faces a procedural nightmare. At the sentencing hearing, the defendant can attempt to challenge information that is "irrelevant” to sentencing, but he or she will probably find the challenge dismissed upon the court's statement of nonreliance. If, however, the defendant does not raise the objection at sentencing, he or she may find that any later challenge has been waived. Meanwhile, the disputed information remains in the PSI. Attempts to correct PSIs after sentencing through direct appeals, “Rule 32 motions,” Rule 35 motions, or section 2255 motions have more often than not been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Courts have stated emphatically that the inmate should raise the issue with the Parole Commission, but the Parole Commission has stated just as emphatically that only the sentencing court has jurisdiction to correct a PSI; and in any case, the Parole Commission has no authority over defendants sentenced under the guidelines.
Keith A. Findley & Meredith J. Ross, Comment, Access, Accuracy and Fairness: The Federal Pre-sentence Investigation Report Under Julian and the Sentencing Guidelines, 1989 Wis.L.Rev. 837, 878.
Findley and Ross suggest that Rule 32 should be amended to grant courts jurisdiction over "simple PSI correction motion[s].” This problem could be somewhat alleviated, particularly in cases such as the present one, if district courts would simply recognize the injustice of leaving erroneous material in the presentence report. If district courts are not so inclined, we certainly have it within our supervisory power to direct them to correct such errors. This could be but one way in which we as federal judges develop the "common law of sentencing” called for by Judge Becker. See Edward R. Becker, Insuring Reliable Fact Finding in Guidelines Sentencing: Must the Guarantees of the Confrontation and Due Process Clauses Be Applied?, 22 Cap. U.L.Rev. 1, 29 (1993).