Court Relies on Disputed PSR Allegations Without Evidence or Ruling, Sentence Vacated
United States v. Sam, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 7691 (8th Cir. Mar. 17, 2026)
The Eighth Circuit vacated a 240-month sentence after finding that the district court relied on disputed, unproven allegations in the Presentence Report while completely bypassing the required process for resolving those disputes. The case highlights a fundamental breakdown in how sentencing objections must be handled.
After the initial sentencing hearing, the court indicated it was considering a substantial upward variance based on allegations in the PSR that went well beyond the core offense conduct. In response, the defense filed written objections specifically denying several of those allegations.
At the second sentencing hearing, the court asked a compound question about objections to the PSR and the guideline range. Defense counsel initially responded that there were no objections. However, once the court began relying on the previously disputed allegations to justify an upward variance, counsel objected to any reliance on unproven facts and renewed that objection again before sentencing concluded.
Despite this, the district court never ruled on the objections. It did not pause the proceedings. It did not require the government to present evidence. It did not make factual findings. Instead, it continued forward as if the disputed allegations were established facts, incorporating them directly into its reasoning for imposing a significantly higher sentence.
The court later formalized that reasoning in its statement of reasons, explicitly relying on those same allegations to support enhancements for extreme conduct and harm, without ever resolving whether the allegations were true.
The Eighth Circuit found this to be clear procedural error. Once factual allegations in a PSR are objected to, the court has only two options: require the government to prove those facts by a preponderance of the evidence or disregard them entirely. The district court did neither. It relied on contested material without evidence and without making findings, which is not permitted.
The appellate court also rejected the argument that the objections were waived due to counsel’s initial response, recognizing that the objections were raised during the hearing and preserved. More importantly, the court emphasized that the sentencing judge’s obligation to resolve disputed facts does not disappear simply because the process became messy or unclear.
Because the record showed that the sentence was based, at least in part, on these unresolved and unproven allegations, and there was no indication the same sentence would have been imposed without them, the error was not harmless. The sentence was vacated and remanded for resentencing.
Bottom line
This case is about a court skipping steps that are not optional. When facts in a PSR are challenged, the judge cannot just accept them and move on. The court must stop, force the government to prove the allegations, and make findings, or ignore the allegations entirely. Here, the court did none of that and still used those disputed facts to increase the sentence. That’s how sentences get inflated by allegations that were never proven, and why the entire proceeding had to be redone.
Work With Me
This is the work I do every day—tracking legal developments, identifying errors, and turning them into real strategies that can lead to relief.
If you want help reviewing a case or figuring out your next move:
👉 Reach out to me directly at Help@GetOutEarly.com
👉 Or schedule a consultation
I also offer flexible payment options so you can move forward when timing matters.
Leave a Reply