United States v. Dan Petri, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7517

Background

Petri pleaded guilty to Bank Fraud, Conspiracy to Commit Access Device Fraud, and Aggravated Identity Theft arising from an ATM skimming scheme that netted about $277k from 300+ victims.
At sentencing, Petri challenged the probation office’s minor role determination and argued that a ringleader named Sorin coerced him and that Petri profited little from the scheme.
The presentence report did not quantify Petri’s personal profits or Sorin’s coercive influence; defense and government arguments about these points were presented at sentencing.
The district court concluded Petri was “very, very active” but did not grant a minor role adjustment, and sentenced Petri to a total term of 60 months, below the low end of some guideline calculations.
Petri appealed, challenging Rule 32(i)(3)(B) and the district court’s sentencing explanation under 18 U.S.C. § 3553.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding Rule 32(i)(3)(B) limits findings to unresolved objections to the PSR that affect sentencing, and the court's explanation was adequate.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Rule 32(i)(3)(B) broaden district court findings to all sentencing-phase controverted matters?	Petri argues the 2002 amendment extends to any controversy in sentencing.	Petri contends the amendment narrows the rule to cover all disputes.	Rule 32(i)(3)(B) limits findings to unresolved PSR objections that affect the sentence.
What is the proper interpretation of 'controverted matter' in Rule 32(i)(3)(B)?	Petri urges a broad interpretation based on text.	The government advocates a narrow reading tied to PSR objections only.	Advisory Committee notes and context support a narrow scope, limited to PSR objections that affect sentencing.
Whether the district court erred by not addressing Sorin’s coercion and Petri’s profits as Rule 32 objections.	Petri asserts the court should rule on these controverted matters.	Prosecutors argue these were not factual PSR objections and need not be ruled on under Rule 32.	The district court properly declined to rule on non-PSR factual assertions; no reversible error.
Was the district court's sentencing explanation adequate under § 3553(a)?	Petri claims the court failed to address his core arguments and Sorin’s coercion.	Court adequately considered arguments and explained reasoning; no need to address every point.	The explanation was sufficiently specific and complied with § 3553(a).

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Ibarra, 737 F.2d 825 (9th Cir. 1984) (reaffirms PSR challenges and requirements for findings)
United States v. Messer, 785 F.2d 832 (9th Cir. 1986) (discusses sentencing information and due process concerns)
Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey, 488 U.S. 153 (Supreme Court 1988) (statutory interpretation and weight of committee guidance)
Tome v. United States, 513 U.S. 150 (1995) (interpretative aids and guidelines to rulemaking)
Schiavone v. Fortune, 477 U.S. 21 (1986) (weight and deference to committee interpretations of rules)
United States v. McGee, 529 F.3d 691 (6th Cir. 2008) (clarifies scope of Rule 32 findings on controverted matters)
United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2008) (district court must consider all § 3553(a) factors; not required to address every argument)
United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2008) (Rule 32 findings limited to PSR objections that affect sentence)
United States v. Darwich, 337 F.3d 645 (6th Cir. 2003) (rule interpretation and controversy scope)
United States v. Doe, 705 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2013) (contextual discussion of sentencing explanations)
United States v. Rangel, 697 F.3d 795 (9th Cir. 2012) (need for context in explaining sentences)
United States v. Saeteurn, 504 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. 2007) (scope of Rule 32 after amendments)
United States v. Cereceres-Zavala, 499 F.3d 1211 (10th Cir. 2007) (fact-finding limits under Rule 32 across circuits)
United States v. Ibarra, 737 F.2d 825 (9th Cir. 1984) (foundational discussion of PSR objections and findings)