Yesterday, the Sixth Circuit remanded Daniel Quail's case for resentencing, finding that the district court failed to make proper findings under Rule 32. The Court found that a Rule 32 violation rendered the sentence procedurally unreasonable.
At sentencing and on appeal, Quail challenged the PSR's accusation that he had sexually abused the minor involved in child pornography offenses. It appears from the record that although Quail raised this issue at sentencing, there was never an explicit finding either accepting or rejecting the allegation. Further, there was evidence in the record that the district court may have relied on the controverted fact in determining the sentence. In remanding for resentencing, the Court found "Ultimately, the district court never affirmatively ruled that Quail did or did not sexually abuse the minor, which the government concedes. The district court’s language during sentencing is also far from clear as to whether it even considered sexual abuse. Absent this clarity, the district court fell short of the requirements of Rule 32 and relevant case law mandating 'literal compliance . . . to ensure that defendants are sentenced on the basis of accurate information and . . . a clear record [is available] for appellate courts[.]'"
Kudos to Sumter Camp and Andrew Brandon from the FPDs office in Nashville!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment