United States v. Charles Schrader
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 1842
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Charles D. Schrader faced supervised-release revocation based on allegations of cocaine possession, sexual assault, and later alcohol consumption.
- Before the revocation hearing, the government announced it would not present evidence on the cocaine and sexual-assault allegations and later moved to dismiss those counts; Schrader presented evidence the victim fabricated those allegations.
- The district court sealed the petitions and granted the government’s dismissal motion as to the cocaine and sexual-assault allegations but refused to strike or redact the corresponding paragraphs from the Supplemental Presentence Investigation Report (PSR).
- The district court sustained Schrader’s factual objections to the PSR paragraphs covering the dismissed allegations but left the paragraphs in place, noting the judgment and transcript would reflect dismissal.
- Schrader appealed only the district court’s refusal to redact the PSR language concerning the sexual-assault allegation, arguing the unredacted material would disrupt rehabilitation placement and risk physical harm.
- The Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s handling of the PSR under Rule 32 and affirmed, holding the court complied with Rule 32 and need not redact the disputed paragraphs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion by refusing to redact PSR paragraphs about dismissed sexual-assault allegation | Schrader: allegation will bar placement in treatment centers and disrupt rehabilitation; possible physical harm | Government/District Court: PSR confidentiality and notation of dismissal suffice; Rule 32 does not require excision of controverted material not considered in sentencing | Affirmed: No abuse of discretion; Rule 32 compliance sufficient; redaction not required |
| Whether Rule 32(d)(3)(A) supports redaction because disclosure could disrupt rehabilitation | Schrader: disclosure of sexual-offense allegation will prevent entry to programs | District Court: Rule 32(d)(3)(A) applies to diagnoses, not allegations; speculation insufficient | Held: Argument fails—plaintiff did not show a relevant "diagnosis" or concrete disruption |
| Whether Rule 32(d)(3)(C) supports redaction due to risk of physical or other harm | Schrader (on appeal): alleged potential physical harm from disclosure | District Court: argument not preserved below and speculative without factual support | Held: Too speculative; district court correctly refused redaction |
| Whether sustaining factual objections but leaving paragraphs in PSR complies with Rule 32 | Schrader: leaving unproven allegations risks reliance and harm | District Court/Gov: transcript, PSR annotation, and judgment reflect objections and dismissal; Rule 32(i)(3)(B) protections adequate | Held: Compliance with Rule 32 satisfies concerns; refusal to redact permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. McLemore, 5 F.3d 331 (8th Cir. 1993) (standard of review for PSR challenges)
- United States v. Asante, 782 F.3d 639 (11th Cir. 2011) (abuse-of-discretion review of PSR redaction decisions)
- United States v. LeBlanc, 762 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1985) (review standard on contested PSR material)
- United States v. Smith, 40 F.3d 933 (8th Cir. 1994) (Rule 32 does not require striking controverted material not considered in sentencing)
- United States v. Orchard, 332 F.3d 1133 (8th Cir. 2003) (discussion of PSR content and Rule 32)
- United States v. Williams, 624 F.3d 889 (8th Cir. 2010) (PSRs are generally confidential)
- United States v. Bartlett, [citation="416 F. App'x 508"] (6th Cir. 2011) (speculative allegations of harm insufficient to justify PSR exclusion)
- United States v. Hopkins, 824 F.3d 726 (8th Cir. 2016) (district court compliance with Rule 32 mitigates concerns about reliance on unproven PSR material)