44 F.4th 815
8th Cir.2022Background
- Police found hundreds of sexually explicit images/videos on Lamark Combs’s cellphone; Combs (age 19) solicited them from underage girls and induced sex with several, including a 13‑year‑old.
- Indicted on six counts (five child‑pornography, one enticing a minor); Combs pleaded guilty to three counts (two receiving from separate victims and one possession).
- The presentence investigation report (PSR) attributed additional images to two other minors (Minor Victim 3 and H.P.); Combs filed a written objection to those specific PSR facts.
- At sentencing the government presented no evidence on those disputed attributions, Combs never renewed the objection on the record, and the district court made no factual findings resolving the dispute.
- The district court nonetheless sentenced Combs using the PSR facts that counted the two additional minors, which increased the Guidelines range; the court varied downward to 210 months (the bottom of the no‑error range) but did not address the unresolved factual dispute.
- The Eighth Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing because the court relied on unproven, disputed facts; it left to the district court whether to reopen the record for further evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Combs waived his written PSR objection by not renewing it at sentencing | Government: Combs waived by failing to renew the objection | Combs: Failure to renew was mere forfeiture, not intentional waiver | Court: Forfeiture, not waiver — plain‑error review applies |
| Whether using disputed, unproven PSR facts at sentencing was harmless error | Government: Any error was harmless; affirm sentence | Combs: Error affected substantial rights and fairness; requires resentencing | Court: Error affected substantial rights and the integrity of proceedings; vacated sentence and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Richey, 758 F.3d 999 (8th Cir. 2014) (district court may not base sentence on unproven, disputed allegations)
- United States v. Bowers, 743 F.3d 1182 (8th Cir. 2014) (when defendant withdraws objection, court may rely on PSR facts)
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (distinguishes waiver from forfeiture; plain‑error framework)
- Molina‑Martinez v. United States, 578 U.S. 189 (2016) (defendant must show error affected substantial rights under plain‑error review)
- Rosales‑Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897 (2018) (plain‑error relief appropriate when failure to correct error undermines fairness and integrity)
- United States v. Cramer, 962 F.3d 375 (8th Cir. 2020) (plain‑error review applies to forfeited sentencing objections)
- United States v. Sorrells, 432 F.3d 836 (8th Cir. 2005) (district court may reopen record for evidence on remand when sentencing facts are unclear)