Federal Appeals Court Vacates Sentence Because Government Failed to Prove Facts in Presentence Report

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a federal prisoner’s 15-year mandatory minimum sentence after finding that prosecutors failed to prove the prior convictions used to enhance his sentence. Although those convictions were listed in the defendant’s Presentence Investigation Report (PSR), the court held that once the defendant specifically disputed their existence, the government had the burden of proving them. Because prosecutors presented no evidence and the sentencing judge imposed the enhancement anyway, the appellate court ordered resentencing without the enhancement.

In United States v. Louis, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 31137 (11th Cir. Oct. 13, 2026), the court reinforced an important sentencing principle: a PSR does not relieve the government of its burden to prove disputed facts used to increase a defendant’s sentence. The decision is particularly important because PSRs routinely contain information that influences sentencing enhancements, criminal history calculations, and other decisions affecting how much time a defendant will spend in federal prison.

How a Disputed PSR Led to a 15-Year Mandatory Minimum

Louis pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). At the time of his offense, that conviction ordinarily carried a statutory maximum sentence of ten years. However, the probation officer preparing his PSR determined that Louis qualified for an enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), which required a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years for defendants with three qualifying prior convictions.

Initially, the draft PSR did not identify the specific convictions supporting the enhancement. Louis objected, requesting that the probation officer or government identify the convictions being relied upon so he could properly challenge them. The final PSR subsequently listed several Florida convictions involving cocaine offenses, aggravated battery, and attempted second-degree murder.

Louis filed additional objections challenging whether those offenses legally qualified as ACCA predicates. But he raised another, more fundamental objection: the government had not actually proved that he sustained the convictions listed in the PSR.

That distinction became the central issue on appeal. Louis was not simply arguing that his prior convictions failed to satisfy ACCA’s legal definitions. He was separately disputing the factual basis for the enhancement and insisting that prosecutors prove the underlying convictions existed.

The Government Presented No Evidence to Support the Enhancement

At sentencing, the district court considered Louis’s legal objections and rejected them, concluding that the offenses identified in the PSR qualified under ACCA. Defense counsel then expressly reminded the court that Louis was also maintaining his factual objection because the government had not established the predicate convictions by a preponderance of the evidence.

The sentencing judge asked the prosecutor whether the government had anything to offer concerning the predicate offenses. The prosecutor responded, “No, Your Honor.”

Despite that response, the judge overruled the objection, accepted the PSR’s factual statements, and imposed the 180-month mandatory minimum sentence.

The Eleventh Circuit found this procedure improper. The government had offered no documentation, testimony, or other evidence establishing the disputed convictions. The only place those convictions appeared in the sentencing record was the PSR itself, and Louis had specifically objected to those factual allegations.

The appellate court explained that when a defendant challenges a factual basis for a sentencing enhancement, the government must establish the disputed fact by a preponderance of the evidence. The sentencing court also has an independent obligation to ensure that the prosecution satisfies that burden before imposing the enhancement.

Why the Government Cannot Simply Rely on Disputed PSR Allegations

The distinction between undisputed and disputed facts in a PSR is critical. Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(3)(A), a sentencing court may generally accept an undisputed portion of a PSR as a finding of fact. But Rule 32(i)(3)(B) requires the court to resolve disputed matters that affect sentencing or determine that a ruling is unnecessary because the disputed matter will not affect the sentence.

That does not mean every objection automatically requires the government to produce witnesses or certified documents. Courts can rely on sufficiently reliable evidence, including properly supported information in a PSR. The defendant must also make an objection that adequately identifies the factual dispute rather than merely expressing disagreement with the recommended sentence.

Louis’s objection was different. He expressly challenged whether the government had proved the prior convictions necessary to trigger ACCA. The prosecution offered nothing beyond their appearance in the PSR. The district court nevertheless treated those allegations as established facts.

Relying on established precedent, the Eleventh Circuit explained that the government’s burden to prove disputed sentencing facts applies to the existence of prior convictions used to support an enhancement. The court also emphasized that sentencing judges must ensure prosecutors carry their burden of proof.

Because the government failed to establish the disputed convictions, the ACCA enhancement could not stand.

The Government Was Also Not Allowed a Second Chance to Prove Its Case

Perhaps the most significant part of the decision was what the Eleventh Circuit instructed the district court to do on remand. Rather than allowing prosecutors another opportunity to present records establishing Louis’s prior convictions, the court ordered resentencing without the ACCA enhancement.

The court recognized that a party bearing the burden of proof on a contested sentencing issue generally does not get another opportunity to present evidence after its original proof is found insufficient on appeal.

Prosecutors knew Louis disputed the alleged prior convictions. They had an opportunity to introduce evidence at sentencing and elected not to do so. The appellate court found no justification for giving the government another opportunity after Louis successfully challenged the enhancement.

This was not merely a procedural ruling requiring the district court to explain its decision more thoroughly. The government lost the opportunity to pursue the ACCA enhancement at resentencing because it failed to meet its burden when the issue was properly before the sentencing court.

What Louis Means for Defendants Preparing for Federal Sentencing

The lesson from Louis extends beyond ACCA cases. Federal sentencing depends heavily on facts contained in the PSR, including allegations about offense conduct, drug quantities, financial losses, leadership roles, criminal history, and other matters that can substantially affect the recommended sentencing range.

Defendants and their attorneys should carefully review the factual basis for any enhancement or calculation that increases the potential sentence. When a material fact is inaccurate, unsupported, or genuinely disputed, the objection should identify precisely what is being challenged and why the available evidence is insufficient. An objection addressing only the legal application of an enhancement may not preserve a separate challenge to the underlying factual allegations.

Just as importantly, objections must be timely and properly preserved. In Louis, defense counsel objected to the draft PSR, renewed the objections after receiving the final PSR, and expressly maintained the government’s failure-of-proof objection at sentencing. That record allowed the Eleventh Circuit to address the issue directly.

The decision does not establish that every factual allegation in a PSR must be independently proved or that an unsupported objection automatically shifts the burden in every federal circuit. The governing evidentiary standards and objection requirements must be considered carefully. But Louis demonstrates the consequences when a defendant properly disputes a sentencing fact and the government fails to establish it.

Why Specialized PSR Review Matters

A PSR is far more than a document used to calculate a defendant’s advisory Guidelines range. It becomes part of the information the Bureau of Prisons uses when making custody classification, security designation, programming, and other institutional decisions. Inaccurate or misleading information can continue affecting a person long after sentencing.

That is why careful PSR review should begin before the sentencing hearing, when objections can still be raised and the record developed. Once sentencing is complete, correcting disputed information or challenging an enhancement can become substantially more difficult.

Louis illustrates how important that process can be. A defendant facing a 15-year mandatory minimum successfully challenged his sentence because his attorney distinguished between the legal qualifications of prior convictions and the government’s obligation to prove those convictions in the first place.

If you’re preparing for federal sentencing, don’t assume that everything in your PSR is accurate or adequately supported. As Louis demonstrates, knowing what to challenge and how to preserve an objection can make an enormous difference in the sentence imposed. If you and your legal team have concerns about unsupported allegations in your PSR or sentencing enhancements, contact me.