U.S.S.G. § 6A1.2
Disclosure of Presentence Report; Issues in Dispute
§6A1.2. Disclosure of Presentence Report; Issues in Dispute (Policy Statement)
(a) The probation officer must give the presentence report to the defendant, the defendant's attorney, and an attorney for the government at least 35 days before sentencing unless the defendant waives this minimum period. Rule 32(e)(2), Fed. R. Crim. P.
(b) Within 14 days after receiving the presentence report, the parties must state in writing any objections, including objections to material information, sentencing guideline ranges, and policy statements contained in or omitted from the report. An objecting party must provide a copy of its objections to the opposing party and to the probation officer. After receiving objections, the probation officer may meet with the parties to discuss the objections. The probation officer may then investigate further and revise the presentence report accordingly. Rule 32(f), Fed. R. Crim. P.
(c) At least 7 days before sentencing, the probation officer must submit to the court and to the parties the presentence report and an addendum containing any unresolved objections, the grounds for those objections, and the probation officer's comments on them. Rule 32(g), Fed. R. Crim. P.
Commentary
Background: In order to focus the issues prior to sentencing, the parties are required to respond in writing to the presentence report and to identify any issues in dispute. See Rule 32(f), Fed. R. Crim. P.Historical Note: Effective November 1, 1987. Amended effective June 15, 1988 (amendment 59); November 1, 1991 (amendment 425); November 1, 1997 (amendment 574); November 1, 2004 (amendment 674).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1990–2023 · leading case: United States v. Frederick Charles Miller
United States v. Frederick Charles Miller (2005)
“Miller contends that the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(d)(1) 6 and U.S.S.G. §§ 6A1.2 and 6A1.3 7 by failing to allow the probation officer to “identify all applicable guidelines” after the court sustained Miller’s objection to the use of the fraud…”
United States v. Garnett Hodge (2018)
“32(f) ; U.S.S.G. § 6A1.2(b) ; see also United States v.”
United States v. Leon Wilbur Terry (1990)
“U.S.S.G. § 6A1.2. District courts typically require objections *162 to the presentence report to be filed in writing before the sentencing hearing.”
United States v. William A. Dietz (1991)
“BACKGROUND Inasmuch as the underlying conviction resulted from a guilty plea, we draw the facts necessary to place this appeal into perspective from the uncontested portions of the Presentence Investigation Report (PSI Report), see U.S.S.G. § 6A1.2, and the transcript of the…”
United States v. Jason Oma Milam, United States of America v. Dewayne Lee Milam (2006)
“The government relies on Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(3)(A), which authorizes the district court to “accept any undisputed portion of the presentence report as a finding of fact,” and on U.S.S.G. § 6A1.2(b), which provides that “parties must state in writing any…”
United States v. Anthony M. Miele John Jay McElfresh Charles J. Walters Patrick T. Reinstadtler James F. Foster, Anthony (1993)
“See also U.S.S.G. §§ 6A1.2 & 6A1.3(b); United States v.”
United States v. Herbert Alan Butt, A/K/A Alan Butt, United States v. James T. Semon, United States v. Herbert Alan Butt (1992)
“” U.S.S.G. § 6A1.2, p.s. Whether the tardiness of an application for enhancement constitutes default, or waiver, however, is a separate and far more controversial matter.”
United States v. Miguel Alfonso Quintana (2002)
“” U.S.S.G. § 6A1.2. Local Rule 88.8(6) represents a reasonable effort to ensure that challenges to the proposed application of the guidelines be identified prior to the sentencing hearing.”
United States v. Randall S. Streich (1993)
“” U.S.S.G. § 6A1.2, p.s. 1 In accordance with this recommendation, the district court entered a procedural order on May 10, 1991 which directed that: 2.”
United States v. Joel Lopez-Cavasos, United States of America v. Joel Lopez-Cavasos (1990)
“U.S.S.G. § 6A1.2, comment, (backg’d) (“In order to focus the issues prior to sentencing, the parties are required to respond to the presentence report and to identify any issues in dispute.”
United States v. Bobby Perkins (1996)
“” U.S.S.G. § 6A1.2. Moreover, the Background notes to section 6A1.”
United States v. Howard Paul Guthrie (1998)
“this case, Guthrie was provided with timely disclosure of the presentence investigation report in accordance with U.S.S.G. § 6A1.2, as well as an opportunity to object to the findings contained in the presentence investigation' report in accordance with U.”
— U.S.S.G. §6A1.2(a) — 1 case
United States v. Duque (2007)
— U.S.S.G. §6A1.2(b) — 4 cases
United States v. Garnett Hodge (2018)
“32(f) ; U.S.S.G. § 6A1.2(b) ; see also United States v.”
United States v. Jason Oma Milam, United States of America v. Dewayne Lee Milam (2006)
“The government relies on Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(3)(A), which authorizes the district court to “accept any undisputed portion of the presentence report as a finding of fact,” and on U.S.S.G. § 6A1.2(b), which provides that “parties must state in writing any…”
PIERCE v. United States (2020)
United States v. Milam (2006)
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.