United States v. Smith

MEMORANDUM **

Ronald Smith, after pleading guilty to charges of bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a), objected to a presentence report finding that he possessed a knife during one robbery. The court did not resolve the objection, but rather stated that it would not consider the disputed fact in sentencing Smith. After sentencing, Smith moved to strike the disputed fact from the presentence report. The court refused to strike and affirmatively found that Smith possessed the knife. We affirm the court’s refusal to strike but remand with instructions that the corut vacate its post-sentencing finding.

*258 DISCUSSION

Smith argues that the district court should have struck the disputed fact from the presentence report to prevent the Bureau of Prisons from relying on false information. We have acknowledged “the unfairness that would result to a defendant if prison or parole officials were to rely on false allegations or uncorrected reports.” See United States v. Carter, 219 F.3d 863, 866 (9th Cir.2000). Nonetheless, neither Rule 32 nor due process requires a district court to strike contested information from a presentence report. See United States v. Robertson, 901 F.2d 733, 735 (9th…