Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves a defendant who sought to amend his presentence report by attaching omitted documents, which he argued were necessary to prevent potential biases from judges, law enforcement, and employers. The defendant was initially indicted for violations related to child pornography and pled guilty to one count, resulting in a 72-month prison sentence followed by five years of supervised release. The defendant filed motions under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32 and 36, seeking to attach documents, including psychological evaluations, to his presentence report. The court denied these motions, stating that challenges to the presentence report must be made within fourteen days of issuance, a deadline the defendant did not meet. Moreover, the court found that it lacked jurisdiction to amend the report post-sentencing and that Rule 36 only permits corrections of clerical, not substantive, errors. The government's partial concession to include certain psychological reports did not alter the court's decision, and the motions were ultimately denied, leaving the presentence report unchanged.
Legal Issues Addressed
Amendment of Presentence Report under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court emphasized that any challenges to the presentence report must be made within fourteen days of its issuance, a deadline which the defendant failed to meet.
Reasoning: Challenges to the report post-sentencing are not permissible... The court emphasized that any challenge to the presentence report should have occurred within fourteen days of its issuance, a deadline that the defendant failed to meet.
Inclusion of Documents in Presentence Reportsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The defendant's request to include omitted documents was denied as it would significantly alter the content of the presentence report, which is not permissible under the rules.
Reasoning: The court found that the defendant's request to amend the presentence report did not pertain to a clerical error and that the documents the defendant sought to include would significantly alter the report's content.
Jurisdiction for Post-Sentencing Corrections under Fed. R. Crim. P. 36subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to amend the presentence report after sentencing, as Rule 36 is limited to correcting clerical errors, not substantive changes.
Reasoning: A district court generally lacks subject matter jurisdiction to challenge inaccuracies in a presentence report after sentencing... Rule 36 is limited to clerical errors, which are minor and mechanical in nature, not substantive changes.