Friday, February 08, 2013

United States v. Petri, No. 11-30337 (Tallman, J., joined by Schroeder and McKeown, JJ)
The Ninth Circuit affirmed a 60-month sentence imposed (Lasnik, J.) for participation in an ATM skimming conspiracy. It held that Rule 32(i)(3)(B) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure -- which requires that a district court must, "for any disputed portion of the presentence report or other controverted matter," "rule on the dispute or determine that a ruling is unncessary" -- "extends only to objections to the presentence report that make a difference in the formulation of an appropriate sentence." In this case, to the extent that the district court ruled on the defendant's objection to the presentence report's recommendation not to grant a downward adjustment for minor role, the district court complied with this requirement. The panel held that the district court was not required to go further and address, in the context of other legal arguments for a particular sentence, the defendant's arguments that he was recruited to participate in the ATM skimming operation by another person whom the government could not locate and who supposedly received the majority of the proceeds from the operation. Moreover, the panel held that the district court's explanation of the sentence was adequate.

The decision is here:


Post a Comment

<< Home