United States v. John Peter Perri

Following his conviction on a charge of possession of goods stolen from an interstate shipment [ 18 U.S.C. § 659 ], appellant was sentenced to a term of ten years’ confinement. His appeal raises the question: Did the district court err in basing its sentence upon allegations contained in “confidential reports” supplied to the court by the government, the defendant being denied access to the reports and an opportunity to rebut them. The colloquy, following imposition of sentence, is set forth in the margin. We remand for resentencing.

Following the jury verdict of a conviction, a presentence report was prepared and submitted to the sentencing judge, and defendant and his counsel were given access to that information. It did not contain the confidential information to which the sentencing judge referred. It did disclose that an indictment in the district of Hawaii had been returned against the defendant and seven others and stated:

Presentence Report p. 14.

After imposition of sentence, the defendant moved the court to disclose the information which had been considered at the time of sentence, for an evidentia-ry hearing to determine the truth of allegation as to…