U.S. v. Restrepo, 86-5967

• Decision Date: 16 November 1987
• Docket Number: No. 86-5967,86-5967
• Citation: 832 F.2d 146
• Parties: 24 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 115 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis Fernando RESTREPO, Mauro Angel Marquina, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Page 146

832 F.2d 146

24 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 115

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis Fernando RESTREPO, Mauro Angel Marquina, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 86-5967.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Nov. 16, 1987.

Thomas M. Dawson, Leavenworth, Kan., for defendants-appellants.

Leon B. Kellner, U.S. Atty., Miami, Florida, Norman A. Moscowitz, Mayra R. Lichter, Linda C. Hertz, Asst. U.S. Attys., Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Before JOHNSON and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges, and HOFFMAN ^*, Senior District Judge.

EDMONDSON, Circuit Judge:

This case involves the issue of burden of proof under Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(c)(3)(D) as to matters contested at a sentencing hearing. Defendants-appellants appeal their sentencing, asserting that once they have disputed points raised by the government, it is the government's burden to advance clear and convincing evidence to support the allegations of the presentence investigation report (PSI). Because we find that the government had only to support its assertions by some reliable proof, and because it did make this showing, we deny appellants' challenge and affirm the district court judgment.

In May 1983, defendants-appellants Restrepo and Marquina, along with two co-defendants, negotiated the sale of over fifty kilograms of cocaine worth over $2.6 million to two undercover agents of the U.S. Customs Service. After a one-ounce sample of cocaine was produced at the meeting, appellants and the others were arrested. Restrepo and Marquina initially pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute. They later moved to withdraw their plea, but the district court denied this motion.

Defendants-appellants now appeal their November 1986 hearing and sentencing. Appellants assert that their culpability was less than that of their co-defendants and that, in finding that they were integral parts of the conspiracy, the district court incorrectly placed the burden of proof on them under Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(c)(3)(D) to disprove the allegations of the government as to their role in the drug transaction.

Historically, sentencing procedures have manifested great flexibility. A sentencing judge has broad discretion in the imposition of criminal sentences. United States v. Reme, 738 F.2d 1156, 1167 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied sub. nom. Pierrot v. United States, 471 U.S. 1104, 105 S.Ct. 2334, 85 L.Ed.2d 850 (1985). The sentence itself is insulated from appellate review if within the statutory limits. Id. While the sentencing process is open to appellate scrutiny, United States v. Saintil, 753 F.2d 984, 990 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 472 U.S. 1012, 105 S.Ct. 2712, 86 L.Ed.2d 727 (1985); United States v. Clements, 634 F.2d 183, 186 (5th Cir.1981), the judge's discretion as regards the process is "largely unlimited either as to the kind of information he may consider, or the source from which it may come." United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 446 92 S.Ct. 589, 591, 30 L.Ed.2d 592 (1972); 18 U.S.C. sec. 3577 ("No limitation shall be placed on the information concerning the background, character, and conduct of a person convicted of an offense which a court of the United States may receive and consider for the purpose of imposing an appropriate sentence."); Tucker v. Kemp, 762 F.2d 1480, 1486-87 (11th Cir.), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 474 U.S. 1001, 106 S.Ct. 517, 88 L.Ed.2d 452 (1985). While this broad discretion allows the sentencing judge to fit the sentence to the individual defendant, it also serves to keep the sentencing procedure fairly simple and brief. "[T]he sentencing procedure is not a trial. Its purpose is to ensure that the district court is sufficiently informed to enable it to exercise its sentencing discretion in an enlightened manner." United States v. Stephens, 699 F.2d 534 (11th Cir.1983) (emphasis added).

Rule 32, itself, does not explicitly address which party shall have what burden when a factual dispute arises as to items in the PSI. Since its promulgation in 1966, however, and in the various forms it has taken throughout the years, Rule 32(c) has been designed to encourage the use of a presentence report in the sentencing proceeding and, more recently, to ensure the accuracy of the report's contents. Nevertheless, a reading of the Advisory Committee Notes and other legislative material related to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure reveals that the drafters of Rule 32, while emphasizing accuracy, have never intended to curtail the scope of information presented in the PSIs or to restrict the probation service in its preparation of these reports. ¹

There are therefore various goals at issue in a sentencing procedure: that the information about defendant relied upon at sentencing be accurate enough to protect defendant's liberty interest, that the sentencing court have free rein in its determination of what is relevant to sentence so as to fit the penalty to the individual defendant, and that the sentencing procedure itself not develop into a full-blown evidentiary hearing. To some degree, these goals can conflict. We conclude that the harmonization of the mandate of Rule 32 and of the goals and policies underlying the sentencing procedures requires only that the government, once challenged as to factual inaccuracies in the PSI, support its statements in the PSI by some reliable proof by which the trial court can conclude that it is not unlikely that the government's statements are true.

The Supreme Court has recently indicated the right of due process does not demand proof of sentencing considerations by clear and convincing evidence, as appellants' contend. McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 2411, 2419-20, 91 L.Ed.2d 67 (1986). Unlike other procedures, where the State is seeking the involuntary commitment of an individual to a mental institution or the involuntary termination of parental rights, "criminal sentencing takes place only after a defendant has been adjudged guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. 106 S.Ct. at 2420 n. 8. In light of both the sentencing court's traditional operation "without constitutionally imposed burdens of proof," McMillan, 106 S.Ct. at 2420 n. 8, and a lack of clear legislative intent as to the imposition of such a burden in Rule 32, we are reluctant to impose such a burden of our own accord. Nevertheless, in view of defendant's constitutional due process right not to be sentenced on the basis of false information, Townsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. 736, 741, 68 S.Ct. 1252, 1255, 92 L.Ed. 1690 (1948), we conclude that the government must advance some satisfactory grounds to support a contested PSI statement, some "information such as to be persuasive of the validity of the [PSI] charge." United States v. Weston, 448 F.2d 626, 634 (9th Cir.1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1061, 92 S.Ct. 748, 30 L.Ed.2d 749 (1972). ²

The government's obligation to support its statements is triggered by a defendant's clear challenge to specific factual inaccuracies. United States v. Aleman, 832 F.2d 142 (11th Cir.1987). As provision (c)(3)(A) of Rule 32 indicates, the district court, in its discretion, may hear testimony or consider other information that the defendant wishes to introduce regarding alleged inaccuracies. We stress that the district court may also pose such questions to prosecution and defense counsel and to the defendant as are necessary to determine that a genuine issue as to a factual inaccuracy exists, before putting the government to its "proof." ³ Once it has been determined that a genuine dispute as to a factual inaccuracy exists, the government must support its PSI statements by some reliable substantiation that is satisfactory to convince the sentencing court that the truth of the PSI statement is not...