Sentencing Guidelines » Chapter 6

U.S.S.G. § 6A1.1

Presentence Report

Read at: USSCussc.gov CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§6A1.1.     Presentence Report (Policy Statement)

(a)       The probation officer must conduct a presentence investigation and submit a report to the court before it imposes sentence unless—

(1)       18 U.S.C. § 3593(c) or another statute requires otherwise; or

(2)       the court finds that the information in the record enables it to meaningfully exercise its sentencing authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3553, and the court explains its finding on the record. 

Rule 32(c)(1)(A), Fed. R. Crim. P.

(b)      The defendant may not waive preparation of the presentence report.

 

Commentary

A thorough presentence investigation ordinarily is essential in determining the facts relevant to sentencing.  Rule 32(c)(1)(A) permits the judge to dispense with a presentence report in certain limited circumstances, as when a specific statute requires or when the court finds sufficient information in the record to enable it to exercise its statutory sentencing authority meaningfully and explains its finding on the record.

Historical Note:  Effective November 1, 1987.  Amended effective June 15, 1988 (amendment 58); November 1, 1989 (amendment 293); November 1, 1997 (amendment 574); November 1, 2004 (amendment 674).


 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1990–2022 · leading case: United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2004). · cites it 2× “§ 3661 and USSG § 6A1.1 in selecting a sentence within a Guidelines range, and of course would be free to consider any such circumstances in cases in which the defendant pleads guilty and waives his Blakely rights.”
United States v. Williams, 641 F.3d 758 (6th Cir. 2011). · cites it 3× “32(c)(1)(A)(ii); U.S.S.G. § 6A1.1(a)(2)). While a district *766 court may sentence a defendant without a presentence report, the defendant may not waive preparation of a presentence report.”
United States v. Gallant, 537 F.3d 1202 (10th Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “See also U.S.S.G. § 6A1.1 (same). Thus, preparation of a PSR by the probation office is mandatory unless one of the two listed exceptions applies.”
United States v. Garnett Hodge, 902 F.3d 420 (4th Cir. 2018). “" See U.S.S.G. § 6A1.1 (commentary). Both the defendant and the Government are required to make any objections they may have to the information in the PSR at or before sentencing.”
United States v. Sanchez Barreto, 93 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 1996). · cites it 2× “See U.S.S.G. § 6A1.1 & Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(b)(1) (requiring completed PSR “before the sentence is imposed”).”
United States v. Leon Wilbur Terry, 916 F.2d 157 (4th Cir. 1990). “U.S.S.G. § 6A1.1. Additionally, the Guidelines urge the district courts to adopt procedures which will result in a resolution or narrowing of issues in dispute in the presentence report.”
United States v. Brown, 557 F.3d 297 (6th Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “U.S.S.G. § 6A1.1 cmt. (“A thorough pre- *300 sentence investigation ordinarily is essential in determining the facts relevant to sentencing.”
United States v. Alejandro Castellanos, 904 F.2d 1490 (11th Cir. 1990). “See Sentencing Guidelines § 6A1.3 & commentary.”
United States v. Robert William Jones, United States of Am. v. Donald Eugene Johnson, 907 F.2d 456 (4th Cir. 1990). “Under the majority’s scheme, probation officers will be required to amass details underlying old convictions, to interview witnesses in foreign jurisdictions, and to prepare detailed analyses of those jurisdictions’ procedural rules.”
United States v. Croxford, 324 F. Supp. 2d 1230 (D. Utah 2004). “U.S.S.G. § 6A1.1; see also Fed. R.Crim. Pro.”
United States v. Jeffrey Bentley, 49 F.4th 275 (3rd Cir. 2022). “32(i)(3)(A); U.S.S.G. § 6A1.1 (commentary) (“A thorough presentence investigation ordinar- ily is essential in determining the facts relevant to sentenc- ing.”
United States v. Frierson, Jerome, 945 F.2d 650 (3rd Cir. 1991). “See U.S.S.G. § 6A1.1 p.s. At the presentence interview, Frierson admitted that he had committed the robbery and that during the robbery he had handed the teller a note that said: “Give me your money, I have a gun.”
Show all 30 citing cases →
— U.S.S.G. §6A1.1(a) — 1 case
United States v. Brown (6th Cir. 2008).
— U.S.S.G. §6A1.1(a)(2) — 5 cases
United States v. Williams, 641 F.3d 758 (6th Cir. 2011). “32(c)(1)(A)(ii); U.S.S.G. § 6A1.1(a)(2)). While a district *766 court may sentence a defendant without a presentence report, the defendant may not waive preparation of a presentence report.”
United States v. Brown, 557 F.3d 297 (6th Cir. 2009). “U.S.S.G. § 6A1.1 cmt. (“A thorough pre- *300 sentence investigation ordinarily is essential in determining the facts relevant to sentencing.”
United States v. Brown (6th Cir. 2008).
United States v. Brown (6th Cir. 2008).
United States v. Brown (6th Cir. 2009).
— U.S.S.G. §6A1.1(b) — 3 cases
United States v. Williams, 641 F.3d 758 (6th Cir. 2011). “32(c)(1)(A)(ii); U.S.S.G. § 6A1.1(a)(2)). While a district *766 court may sentence a defendant without a presentence report, the defendant may not waive preparation of a presentence report.”
United States v. Brown (6th Cir. 2008).
United States v. Brown (6th Cir. 2008).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.