Background
John Thomas German, Jr. appealed after the district court revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to 12 months in prison followed by two years of supervised release.
The district court relied on disputed facts contained in a supplemental presentence report. The government presented no evidence supporting those facts, and both parties maintained on appeal that the sentence should be vacated and the case remanded.
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth Circuit held that the district court committed procedural error by relying on disputed facts in the supplemental presentence report without supporting evidence from the government. Once German disputed those facts, the government bore the burden of producing evidence to establish them; the report itself was not evidence.
The error was not harmless because the district court considered the disputed facts shortly before imposing the sentence. The court therefore vacated German’s sentence and remanded for resentencing on the existing record, meaning the government may not introduce new evidence on remand.
Key Takeaways
- A sentencing court may rely on facts in a presentence report only while those facts remain undisputed.
- When a defendant disputes presentence-report facts, the government must present evidence supporting them.
- Resentencing must occur on the existing record because the government failed to meet its evidentiary burden initially.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the evidentiary safeguards governing supervised-release revocation sentences. Allegations in a presentence report do not become proof merely because they appear in the report, and reliance on unsupported disputed facts may require resentencing.
German’s imminent release from prison did not moot the appeal because the district court retains discretion on remand to shorten his supervised-release term.