United States v. Bramley, 847 F.3d 1

Daniel Bramley, a British national, pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute marijuana after a DEA wiretap tied him to ringleader Robert Evon; other counts were dismissed.
PSI attributed large drug quantities (68.2 kg marijuana; liquid LSD equivalent) though Bramley made no quantity admissions; Apprendi limited the statutory maximum to 60 months.
At sentencing the government urged near‑maximum time based on alleged broader trafficking and prior large cash seizures; defense sought leniency citing remote past conduct, medical issues, and immigration consequences.
During sentencing the judge engaged in two brief off‑the‑record conversations with the probation officer (≈5 minutes and ≈10 seconds); Bramley did not object at the time.
After the first recess the court found Bramley had lied during sentencing and denied an acceptance‑of‑responsibility reduction, imposing a 50‑month term (below the government’s request).
Bramley appealed solely on the ground that the ex parte probation‑court communications violated his right to know and challenge information used at sentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether brief off‑the‑record communications between judge and probation officer during sentencing constitute reversible error when contents were not disclosed	Bramley: Ex parte conversations may have introduced undisclosed facts influencing sentence; he was entitled to know and challenge any such facts	Government/Court: Probation officers act as an arm of the court; ex parte advice is permissible so long as new material facts are not relied upon without disclosure	No plain error. Because record gives no indication the conversations supplied new factual information, Bramley failed to show clear, prejudicial error affecting substantial rights

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (constitutional rule that facts increasing statutory maximum must be admitted or found by a jury)
Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220 (Apprendi principles apply to facts supporting sentences above statutory maximums)
United States v. Fraza, 106 F.3d 1050 (probation officer may confer ex parte with judge; officer is court’s arm)
United States v. Craven, 239 F.3d 91 (ex parte communications that supply new factual information warrant disclosure/remand)
United States v. Curran, 926 F.2d 59 (defendant must not be sentenced on materially false or undisclosed information; Rule 32 disclosure duties)
United States v. Christman, 509 F.3d 299 (vacating sentence where judge relied on undisclosed ex parte factual communications)
Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (plain‑error framework requires showing prejudice)
Jones v. United States, 527 U.S. 373 (uncertain effects of error preclude a showing of prejudice)