Unpublished Disposition, 855 F.2d 863 (9th Cir. 1988)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Charles Edward Shipherd contends that the district court abused its discretion by basing his sentence upon inaccurate information contained in the presentence report. Shipherd objected to the report in his written motion for correction of the presentence report.

Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(c) (3) (D) governs the district court when a defendant challenges a presentence report. The rule mandates that the court explicitly state for the record either its findings regarding the challenged information or its decision that such finding is not necessary because the controverted information will not be considered in sentencing. Additionally, the court must append a written record of its findings to the presentence report. United States v. Ibarra, 737 F.2d 825, 827-28 (9th Cir. 1984). Failure to comply with Rule 32(c) (3) (D) will result in remand. United States v. Edwards, 800 F.2d 878, 881 (9th Cir. 1986).

We are not persuaded that defense counsel withdrew his objections to the presentence report during a confusing colloquy with the judge at the sentencing hearing.

There is no indication that the district court made factual findings about Shipherd's contentions that information in the presentence report was inaccurate. Nor is there is evidence that the court decided not to consider the disputed information when sentencing Shipherd. Therefore, this case is remanded to the district court for resentencing in order to ensure compliance with Rule 32(c) (3) (D).

REVERSED and REMANDED.