United States v. Petri, No. 11-30337 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseDefendant plead guilty to aggravated identity theft and two other counts in connection with an ATM skimming scheme. On appeal, defendant argued that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 extended the district court's fact-finding responsibility to all matters controverted, no matter how they were presented, throughout the entire sentencing phase. The court held that Rule 32(i)(3)(B) required a district court to address only unresolved factual objections to the presentence report, and defendant failed to dispute any fact in the report. Similarly, when explaining a sentence, the district court need not address every assertion made within every argument advanced before the court during sentencing. The district court properly considered the presentence report and the parties' arguments and then adequately explained its reasonable and generous resolution imposing a below Guidelines sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Criminal Law. Affirming a sentence, the panel rejected the defendant’s contention that a 2002 amendment to Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(3)(B) expanded the district court’s fact-finding responsibilities at sentencing. The panel held that Rule 32(i)(3)(B) requires a district court to address only unresolved factual objections to the presentence report that make a difference in the formulation of an appropriate sentence. The panel also held that the district court adequately explained the reasons for fashioning its sentence.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on April 12, 2013.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.