United States v. Warren, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 24860

In 2011 Steven C. Warren robbed a Kansas bank at gunpoint, pleaded guilty to armed bank robbery, and the government dismissed other counts. The district court sentenced him to the statutory maximum of 300 months.
The presentence report (PSR) listed convictions and an “Other Criminal Conduct” section detailing ~22 prior arrests that did not result in convictions. The PSR also classified Warren as a career offender, producing an advisory guideline range of 188–235 months.
Warren objected to the career-offender classification and to paragraphs describing prior arrests, arguing the material was old, unprosecuted, or otherwise subject to speculation and therefore irrelevant or prejudicial.
At sentencing the district court found Warren was a career offender based on convictions, discussed § 3553 factors, stated it would disregard the “other criminal conduct,” and varied upward to impose the statutory maximum to protect the public. Warren did not press a Rule 32(i)(3)(B) objection at that time.
On appeal Warren argued the district court procedurally erred by assuming the truth of disputed PSR statements and relying on them to increase his sentence; the Tenth Circuit reviewed for plain error and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court violated Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(3)(B) by adopting or assuming truth of disputed PSR facts about prior arrests	Warren: he specifically disputed PSR paragraphs and the court improperly treated them as true without resolving them	Government: Warren s objections were general (relevance/staleness), not specific factual disputes; the court addressed and disregarded the other-criminal-conduct	The court held no Rule 32 violation: Warren s objections were too general to trigger the rule s factfinding duty, the court expressly stated it would disregard the other-criminal conduct, and Warren failed to press a Rule 32 claim at sentencing.
Whether plain error occurred that affected Warren's substantial rights and requires remand	Warren: even if review is plain-error, the court assumed disputed PSR facts and relied on them for an upward variance	Government: even assuming error, record and district court s reasoning (career-offender status, convictions, recidivism, and § 3553 factors) show no reasonable probability of a different sentence	The court held no plain error: even on assumptions favoring Warren, the district court s independent reasons for an upward variance did not rely on the contested PSR paragraphs and therefore any error would not have affected substantial rights.

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (sentencing reasonableness framework post-Booker)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (reasonableness review of sentences)
United States v. Guzman, 318 F.3d 1191 (10th Cir. 2003) (adopting a disputed PSR does not satisfy Rule 32)
United States v. Williamson, 53 F.3d 1500 (10th Cir. 1995) (plain-error review where defendant failed to press Rule 32 objection)
United States v. Romero, 491 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2007) (review standards for sentence reasonableness and plain-error framework)
United States v. Cereceres-Zavala, 499 F.3d 1211 (10th Cir. 2007) (Rule 32 is not for advancing pure legal sentencing challenges)
United States v. Yates, 22 F.3d 981 (10th Cir. 1994) (PSR facts are treated as reliable unless defendant presents information to cast doubt)
United States v. Mateo, 471 F.3d 1162 (10th Cir. 2006) (district court may rely on uncontested PSR facts when justifying variance)