United States v. Ollie Peterson
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 6177
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Peterson pled guilty to one count of bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. §2113(a) for robbing a bank to pay a drug dealer.
- The district court sentenced Peterson to 168 months, within the Guidelines range, after reading from a confidential probation officer recommendation.
- The confidential recommendation was submitted only to the court; neither party viewed it.
- Peterson argued the court’s reliance on the confidential recommendation violated Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.
- The PSR characterized Peterson as a career offender (criminal history category VI) with a guideline range of 151–188 months.
- The sentencing included a quoted PSR passage and a discussion that relied on the confidential recommendation’s analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reliance on a confidential sentencing recommendation violated due process | Peterson: due process violated; no opportunity to respond to the confidential analysis | Gov: no due process violation; all underlying facts disclosed; confidential reasoning permissible | No constitutional violation; plain-error review applied |
| Whether the claim was forfeited and reviewed for plain error | Peterson failed to object at sentencing | Gov: preserved via post-plea/appeal avenues; objections could have been raised | Forfeited; reviewed for plain error |
| Whether Sixth Amendment rights were violated by limited opportunity to address confidential justification | Counsel could not respond to confidential justification before sentencing | Counsel engaged in comprehensive mitigation argument; not a Cronic-like failure | No Sixth Amendment violation; not a complete failure of counsel under Cronic |
| Whether due process requires disclosure of the probation officer’s rationale in the confidential recommendation | Disclosure of reasoning necessary for fair sentencing | Facts supporting the reasoning were disclosed in the PSR; confidential rationale not required | Due process satisfied; disclosure not constitutionally required; still affirmed the sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Heilprin v. United States, 910 F.2d 471 (7th Cir. 1990) (confidential recommendations constitutional; factual basis disclosed in PSR suffices)
- Baldrich v. United States, 471 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2006) (disclosure of factual information supports due process; reasoning can be confidential)
- Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349 (1977) (psr confidentiality and opportunity to comment on information influencing sentencing)
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error review for forfeited constitutional rights)
- Headspeth v. United States, 852 F.2d 753 (4th Cir. 1988) (due process and access to information in PSR context)
- Veteto v. United States, 945 F.2d 163 (7th Cir. 1991) (probation officer as an arm of the court; disclosure practices)
- United States v. Turner, 203 F.3d 1010 (7th Cir. 2000) (probation officers not rogues; avoid perception of bias)
- United States v. Vasquez-Pita, 411 F. App’x 887 (7th Cir. 2011) (nonprecedential; discussion of mitigation vs. aggravation)
- Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (2002) (Sixth Amendment standard for ineffective assistance applies to sentencing)