United States v. Robert Petrozzino

MEMORANDUM

Robert Petrozzino appeals various aspects of the district court’s imposition of a 75-month prison sentence for the crimes of possession of stolen mail, theft of government money, and aggravated identity theft. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

First, the district court did not fail to resolve factual disputes in Petrozzino’s presentencing report, as Petrozzino now contends. The district court had no obligation under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(3)(B) to resolve factual disputes related to paragraphs 11 through 14 of the presentencing report because Pe-trozzino failed “to make specific allegations of factual inaccuracy” in regard to those paragraphs. United States v. Christensen, 732 F.3d 1094, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2013). Although Petrozzino had argued during the sentencing proceedings that various portions of his presentencing report were incorrect or unsubstantiated, the district court specifically rejected those arguments at Petrozzino’s sentencing hearing. In doing so, the district court made findings sufficient to permit meaningful review by this Court.

Second, under the facts of this case, it was reasonable for the…