Cluster 597494 (1993)

Accordingly, "[d]ue process requires that some minimal indicia of reliability accompany a hearsay statement," United States v. Petty, 982 F.2d 1365, 1369 (9th Cir.1993), and "a significant possibility of misinformation justifies the sentencing court in requiring the Government to verify the [hearsay] information," Fatico, 579 F.2d at 712-13 . 73 The FDPA in particular sets up a procedural framework at capital sentencing that adequately balances (1) the requisite access to a …

Petty, 982 F.2d at 1369.

Because the district court did not unreasonably restrict A. Walker's ability to test Morales's reliability through cross-examination, the question is whether the district court abused its discretion in determining that Morales's testimony was sufficiently reliable to satisfy the due process concern that a defendant not "be sentenced on the basis of materially incorrect information." See United States v. Petty, 982 F.2d 1365, 1369-70 (9th Cir.1993), amended by 992 F.2d 1015 (…

Because the district court did not unreasonably restrict A. Walker’s ability to test Morales’s reliability through cross-examination, the question is whether the district court abused its discretion in determining that Morales’s testimony was sufficiently reliable to satisfy the due process concern that a defendant not “be sentenced on the basis of materially incorrect information.” See United States v. Petty, 982 F.2d 1365, 1369-70 (9th Cir.1993), amended by 992 F.2d 1015 (…

Due process would likely dictate that he have that opportunity, see United States v. Petty, 982 F.2d 1365, 1369 (9th Cir.), amended by 992 F.2d 1015 (9th Cir.1993), but this would lead the district court into the very factfinding Taylor sought to avoid.

See Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b); Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 246 , 69 S.Ct. 1079 , 93 L.Ed. 1337 (1949); United States v. Petty, 982 F.2d 1365, 1369 (9th Cir.), amended by 992 F.2d 1015 (9th Cir.1993).

United States v. Petty, 982 F.2d 1365, 1369 (9th Cir.1993).

We have long held "a defendant clearly has a due process right not to be sentenced on the basis of materially incorrect information." United States v. Petty, 982 F.2d 1365, 1369 (9th Cir.1993).

United States v. Chee, 110 F.3d 1489, 1492 (9th Cir.1997) (quoting United States v. Petty, 982 F.2d 1365, 1369 (9th Cir.1993)).

United States v. Petty, 982 F.2d 1365, 1369 (9th Cir. 1993).

“Due process requires [only] some minimal indicia of reliability . . . .” United States v. Petty, 982 F.2d 1365, 1369 (9th Cir.), amended, 992 F.2d 1015 (9th Cir. 1993).

“Due process requires [only] some minimal indicia of reliability . . . .” United States v. Petty, 982 F.2d 1365, 1369 (9th Cir.), amended, 992 F.2d 1015 (9th Cir. 1993).

Id. at 797 (reviewing factual findings underlying a district court’s sentence for clear error); United States v. Berry, 258 F.3d 971, 976 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding that the district court may consider hearsay at sentencing, so long as it has “some minimal indicia of reliability” (quoting United States v. Petty, 982 F.2d 1365, 1369 (9th Cir. 1993))).

“Because . . . ‘a defendant clearly has a due process right not to be sentenced on the basis of materially incorrect information,’ . . . we require that ‘some minimal indicia of reliability accompany a hearsay statement.’” United States v. Huckins, 53 F.3d 276, 279 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting United States v. Petty, 982 F.2d 1365, 1369 (9th Cir.1993)).

For example, Yanchun Li (Lin’s co-conspirator) signed a plea deal in which Li admitted that the conspirators caused the victims to engage in commercial sex acts by “verbally abusing them; threatening them with physical violence; and falsely claiming to have favorable relationships with corrupt government officials.” The district court properly considered the victims’ and Li’s hearsay statements because they were accompanied by at least “some minimal indicia of reliability.” …

Regarding E.H.’s and C.H.’s hearsay statements in the PSR, including that Ford raped E.H., it was entirely appropriate for the district court to rely on the statements as they were supported, at the very least, “by ‘some minimal indicia of reliability.’” United States v. Berry, 258 F.3d 971, 976 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting United States v. Petty, 982 F.2d 1365, 1369 (9th Cir. 1993)).

Hopper has not shown that the confidential source’s statements lacked any indicia of reliability, see United States v. Petty, 982 F.2d 1365, 1369 (9th Cir. 1993), or that the district court failed to remain impartial and disinterested, see Alfaro, 336 F.3d at 883–84.

Due process requires only that “some minimal indicia of reliability accompany a hearsay statement.” United States v. Petty, 982 F.2d 1365, 1369 (9th Cir. 1993).

“Generally, hearsay evidence . . . may be used in sentencing,” but “we require that ‘some minimal indicia of reliability accompany a hearsay statement.’” United States v. Huckins, 53 F.3d 276, 279 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting United States v. Petty, 982 F.2d 1365, 1369 (9th Cir. 1993)).

"Generally, hearsay evidence may be used in sentencing,” but “we require that ‘some minimal indicia of reliability accompany a hearsay statement.’ ” United States v. Huckins, 53 F.3d 276, 279 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting United States v. Petty, 982 F.2d 1365, 1369 (9th Cir. 1993)).

“Generally, hearsay evidence ... may be used in sentencing,” but “we require that ‘some minimal indicia of reliability accompany a hearsay statement.’ ” United States v. Huckins, 53 F.3d 276, 279 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting United States v. Petty, 982 F.2d 1365, 1369 (9th Cir. 1993)).

See United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1085 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc) (district court may rely on undisputed statements in the PSR at sentencing); United States v. Petty, 982 F.2d 1365, 1370 (9th Cir.1993) (hearsay may be considered at sentencing as long as it bears “minimal indicia of reliability”).

See, e.g., Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 250-51 , 69 S.Ct. 1079 , 93 L.Ed. 1337 (1949); United States v. Petty, 982 F.2d 1365, 1367-68 (9th Cir.1993); U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3(a).

It is well-established that a defendant “has a due process right not to be sentenced on the basis of materially incorrect information.” United States v. Petty, 982 F.2d 1365, 1369 (9th Cir.1993).

U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3 (“In resolving any dispute concerning a factor important to the sentencing determination, the court may consider relevant information without regard to its admissibility under the rules of evidence applicable at trial, provided that the information has sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy.”); United States v. Petty, 982 F.2d 1365, 1369 (9th Cir.), amended by 992 F.2d 1015 (9th Cir.1993) (“Due process requires that some minimal i…

United States v. Petty, 982 F.2d 1365, 1367 (9th Cir.1993).

United States v. Petty, 982 F.2d 1365, 1369 (9th Cir.1993); see also United States v. Ponce, 51 F.3d 820, 828 (9th Cir.1995) (“While hearsay statements may be considered at sentencing, due process requires that such statements be corroborated by extrinsic evidence.”).

Due process would likely dictate that he have that opportunity, see United States v. Petty, 982 F.2d 1365, 1369 (9th Cir.), amended by 992 F.2d 1015 (9th Cir. 1993), but this would lead the district court into the very fact- finding Taylor sought to avoid.

United States v. Petty, 982 F.2d 1365, 1369 (9th Cir.1993); see also United States v. Huckins, 53 F.3d 276, 279 (9th Cir.1995).

United States v. Petty, 982 F.2d 1365, 1369 (9th Cir. 1993); see also United States v. Huckins, 53 F.3d 276, 279 (9th Cir.1995).

United States v. Petty, 982 F.2d 1365, 1369 (9th Cir.1993).

“Due process requires that some minimal indicia of reliability accompany a hearsay statement.” United States v. Petty, 982 F.2d 1365, 1369 (9th Cir. 1993).

“Due process requires that some minimal indicia of reliability accompany a hearsay statement.” United States v. Petty, 982 F.2d 1365, 1369 (9th Cir.1993).

Sandoval-Huerta had no right to cross-examine the hearsay declarant at sentencing, Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 250 , 69 S.Ct. 1079 , 93 L.Ed. 1337 (1949), and due process requires only that Sandoval-Huerta not be sentenced based on “materially incorrect information,” United States v. Petty, 982 F.2d 1365, 1369 (9th Cir.), amended on other grounds, 992 F.2d 1015 (9th Cir. 1993).

See United States v. Navarro, 169 F.3d 228, 236 (5th Cir.1999) (holding that “there is no Confrontation Clause right at sentencing”); United States v. Francis, 39 F.3d 803, 810 (7th Cir.1994) (“[E]ven with the dramatic *179 changes in the sentencing process brought about by the Sentencing Guidelines, the pre-Guidelines policy of allowing sentencing courts to obtain all relevant sentencing information without the strictures of the right of confrontation remains intact....”); …

See, e.g., Szabo v. Walls, 313 F.3d 392, 398 (7th Cir.2002); United States v. Petty, 982 F.2d 1365, 1367 (9th Cir.1993); United States v. Silverman, 976 F.2d 1502, 1508-11 (6th Cir.1992); United States v. Wise, 976 F.2d 393, 402 (8th Cir.1992) (en banc); United States v. Kikumura, 918 F.2d 1084 , 1102-03 & n.19 (3d Cir.1990); United States v. Beaulieu, 893 F.2d 1177, 1180 (10th Cir.1990).

United States v. Petty, 982 F.2d 1365, 1367 (9th Cir.1993).

In fact, a court may rely on hearsay statements so long as they are accompanied by “some minimal indicia of reliability.” United States v. Petty, 982 F.2d 1365, 1369 (9th Cir.1993).

Stat. § 161.605(l)-(2) (stating that the maximum penalty for a Class A felony is 20 years’ imprisonment and the maximum penalty for a Class B felony is 10 years’ imprisonment). *1176 R.Evid. 1101(d)(3); 18 U.S.C. § 3661 ; United States v. Petty, 982 F.2d 1365, 1367-68 (9th Cir.1993).

At sentencing, a district court may consider hearsay statements that have a “ ‘sufficient indicia of reliability to support [their] probable accuracy.’ ” United States v. Petty, 982 F.2d 1365, 1367 (9th Cir.1993) (citations omitted).

See Jordan, 291 F.3d at 1098 n. 9; United States v. Petty, 982 F.2d 1365, 1367 (9th Cir.1993).

United States v. Petty, 982 F.2d 1365 1369 (9th Cir.1993).

Although hearsay evidence may be used in sentencing, U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3(a), we have held that “a defendant clearly has a due process right not to be sentenced on the basis of materially incorrect information.” United States v. Petty, 982 F.2d 1365, 1369 (9th Cir.1993), amended on denial of reh’g, 992 F.2d 1015 (9th Cir.1993).

People do not lightly admit a crime and place critical evidence in the hands of police in the form of their own admis- sions.”). 22 United States v. Petty, 982 F.2d 1365, 1371 (9th Cir. 1993)(Noonan, J. dissent- ing)(describing Potemkin Villages in the legal context as “attractive but illusory struc- tures that suggest a health state of constitutional safeguards that do not actually ex- ist.”)(internal citation omitted). 23 United States v. Thomas, 22 M.J. 388, 393 (C.M.A. 1…

In United States v. Petty, 982 F.2d 1365, 1369 (9th Cir. 1993), the court held that due process is violated if a defendant is sentenced on materially incorrect information.

In United States v. Petty, 982 F.2d 1365, 1369 (9th Cir.1993), the court stated that due process requires that hearsay bear some minimal indicia of reliability in order to be considered at sentencing, and a defendant cannot be sentenced on materially incorrect information.

People v. Cain, 82 Cal.App.4th 81, 86 , 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 836 (Cal.Ct.App.2000); see also United States v. Kirby, 418 F.3d 621, 627-28 (6th Cir.2005) (holding that "Confrontation Clause protections do not extend to sentencing hearings”); United States v. Petty, 982 F.2d 1365, 1368 (9th Cir.1993) (holding the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution does not apply at sentencing under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual and "[t]he procedural protections afforded a…

See, e.g., Szabo v. Walls, 313 F.3d 392, 398 (7th Cir.2002); United States v. Garcia-Sanchez, 189 F.3d 1143, 1149 (9th Cir.1999); United States v. Bingham, 81 F.3d 617, 630 (6th Cir.1996); United States v. Petty, 982 F.2d 1365, 1367 (9th Cir.1993); United States v. Silverman, 976 F.2d 1502, 1510 (6th Cir.1992) (en banc); United States v. Wise, 976 F.2d 393, 402 (8th Cir.1992) (en banc); United States v. Tardiff, 969 F.2d 1283, 1287 (1st Cir.1992); United States v. Johnson, 9…

See, for example, United States v. Fennell, 65 F.3d 812, 814 (10th Cir.1995); United States v. Petty, 982 F.2d 1365, 1368 (9th Cir.1993), amended, 992 F.2d 1015 (1993); United States v. Wise, 976 F.2d 393, 402 (8th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 989 , 113 S.Ct. 1592 , 123 L.Ed.2d 157 (1993); and Beaulieu, 893 F.2d at 1179-81 .

See United States v. Johnson, 935 F.2d 47, 50 (4th Cir.1991); United States v. Beaulieu, 893 F.2d 1177, 1180-81 (10th Cir.1990); United States v. Petty, 982 F.2d 1365, 1367 (9th Cir.1993); United States v. Wise, 976 F.2d 393, 402 (8th Cir.1992) (en banc); United States v. Silverman, 976 F.2d 1502, 1510 (6th Cir.1992) (en banc); United States v. Marshall, 910 F.2d 1241, 1244 (5th Cir.1990); United States v. Kikumura, 918 F.2d 1084, 1102 (3d Cir.1990); United States v. Tardiff…