United States v. Ford, 73 F.4th 57

Amanda Ford pleaded guilty to a conspiracy to distribute heroin, fentanyl, cocaine base, and cocaine; sentencing range under the Guidelines was 46–57 months (offense level 23, CH I) after the PSR attributed a 145.65‑gram fentanyl cache seized from co‑conspirator Pedro Báez's home to Ford.
Law enforcement recorded controlled buys and wiretaps: Ford made a 2.5‑gram heroin‑fentanyl delivery and drove Báez’s son during a buy that yielded crack and fentanyl; calls showed shared customers and Ford warning Báez about police activity.
At arrest in Báez’s home agents found 144.3 grams of heroin‑fentanyl in his bedroom and 1.35 grams in a purse in a bedroom Ford used.
Ford objected to the PSR attribution of the home cache to her and to the government’s reliance on non‑PSR materials in its sentencing memorandum; she preserved the attribution challenge but did not press for a continuance to investigate non‑PSR material.
The district court stated it read the PSR and filings, heard argument, declined to change the PSR calculation, adopted the PSR on the Statement of Reasons, and imposed a below‑Guidelines variant sentence of 24 months.

Issue	Gov't's Argument	Ford's Argument	Held
Whether the district court violated Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(3)(B) by failing to rule on Ford's factual objections to the PSR	The court implicitly resolved the disputes by reading the PSR, hearing argument, and adopting the PSR without change	The court failed to make the explicit factual rulings required at sentencing	No error; record "read as a whole" reliably shows the judge implicitly resolved objections against Ford (affirmed)
Whether the fentanyl cache in Báez's home is attributable relevant conduct to Ford for Guidelines purposes	The cache was foreseeable and within the scope of the conspiracy given Ford's deliveries, shared customers, and warning Báez about police	Mere relationship or presence in the home is insufficient; PSR attribution lacks a factual basis	No clear error; attribution was reasonable on the record (affirmed)
Whether the court could rely on non‑PSR information in the government’s sentencing memo	The government had disclosed the material earlier; Ford did not meaningfully challenge most of it or request more time	Ford objected to surprise and contested one call’s content; she argued the court should ignore non‑PSR material	Court could consider non‑PSR material not directly challenged; Ford only contested one call, so reliance on other material was permissible

United States v. Romero, 906 F.3d 196 (1st Cir. 2018) (record may show an implicit resolution of disputed PSR facts where court adopts PSR and the transcript supports that adoption)
United States v. Carbajal‑Váldez, 874 F.3d 778 (1st Cir. 2017) (appellate standard for inferring implicit factual rulings from the record)
United States v. Cintrón‑Echautegui, 604 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2010) (relevant conduct in jointly undertaken activity includes reasonably foreseeable acts of co‑conspirators)
United States v. Díaz‑Arroyo, 797 F.3d 125 (1st Cir. 2015) (court may rely on prosecutor's sentencing representations when defense does not directly challenge them)
United States v. Doe, 741 F.3d 217 (1st Cir. 2013) (sentencing court may consider any sufficiently reliable evidence)
United States v. Berríos‑Miranda, 919 F.3d 76 (1st Cir. 2019) (court has broad discretion to consider dependable information at sentencing)
United States v. Pinkham, 896 F.3d 133 (1st Cir. 2018) (reasonable foreseeability, not actual knowledge, governs relevant‑conduct attribution)
United States v. Soto‑Villar, 40 F.4th 27 (1st Cir. 2022) (drug‑quantity findings reviewed for clear error; relevant conduct rule governs attribution)