United States District Court, D. Maine
ORDER ON MOTION TO EXCLUDE PORTIONS OF THE
PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORT
A. WOODCOCK, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Court declines to rule on the accuracy of the contents of a
presentence investigation report that will not factor into
the Defendant's sentence.
September 16, 2015, a federal grand jury charged Syriane
Baldwin with two counts of distribution of cocaine base on
September 3 and September 5, 2014, both violations of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Indictment (ECF No. 19). On
May 18, 2016, Mr. Baldwin pleaded guilty only to count two of
the indictment, the September 5, 2014 incident, and the
Government agreed to dismiss count one, the September 3, 2014
incident. Agreement to Plead Guilty at 1 (ECF No.
90); Min. Entry (ECF No. 91).
United States Probation Office (PO) prepared a Presentence
Investigation Report (PSR) that was finally revised on August
10, 2016. Presentence Investigation Report at 1-18
(PSR). The PSR described the offense conduct of
September 5, 2014. Id. ¶ 6. The PSR also
included as relevant conduct Mr. Baldwin's sale of crack
cocaine on September 3, 2014. Id. ¶ 5. The
number of grams of cocaine base from the two sales was only
3.15 grams or 54.92 kilograms of marijuana equivalent.
See Id. ¶¶ 5, 6. However, as further
relevant conduct, the PO described in paragraph seven Mr.
Baldwin's involvement in a much broader drug-dealing
conspiracy, involving the distribution of cocaine base,
heroin, and oxycodone, beginning the summer of 2012 and
continuing until September 2014; the PO attributed an
additional 4, 610.05 kilograms of marijuana equivalent to
this broader conspiracy. Id. ¶ 7. Mr. Baldwin
objected to the contents of the broader conspiracy and, when
pressed, the Government conceded that it “is not
prepared to prove the relevant conduct drug quantities
attributed to the defendant in paragraph 7.”
Id. addendum at 1.
Baldwin is scheduled to be sentenced on October 26, 2016.
Notice of Rescheduled Hr'g (ECF No. 106). On
October 6, 2016, Mr. Baldwin moved to exclude the information
in paragraph seven from the PSR. Def.'s Mot. to
Exclude Info. From the Am. Presentence Investigation
Report (ECF No. 110) (Def.'s Mot.). The
Government filed its opposition on October 7, 2016.
Gov't's Resp. to the Def.'s Mot. to Exclude
Info. From the Am. Presentence Investigation Report (ECF
No. 111) (Gov't's Opp'n).
THE PARTIES' POSITIONS
Syriane Baldwin's Motion
motion, Mr. Baldwin asserts that during plea negotiations in
his case, the Government “has made it clear to both
current and prior counsel . . . that they intended to pursue
drug conspiracy charges against him in addition to the
current Indictment.” Def.'s Mot. ¶ 2.
He says that after he pleaded guilty, the Government provided
the PO with reports evidencing his “relevant
conduct.” Id. However, not all of these
reports have been provided to Mr. Baldwin. Id. As a
consequence, he complains, the PSR contains “a relevant
conduct claim involving the alleged drug quantities from the
undisclosed conspiracy investigation materials.”
Baldwin sees it, the Government has responded that it does
not intend to present any evidence at sentencing to support
the relevant conduct in the PSR and it would specifically not
share any investigative material about the other drug
conspiracy with him. Id. ¶ 3. Even though Mr.
Baldwin objected to the inclusion of these materials in his
PSR, the PO refused to remove the objected-to material.
Id. Mr. Baldwin agrees that the United States
Sentencing Guidelines allow a court to calculate the
guideline range based “not only on the crime of
conviction, but on separate crimes, comprised of their own
elements, of which the defendant was acquitted, with which
the defendant was never charged, or which were
dismissed.” Id. ¶ 4 (citing U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.3(a)(1), (a)(2), and cmt. n.3).
Baldwin claims that the information in the instant case fits
into a new category not recognized by the Guidelines: crimes
with which the defendant will be charged. Id. ¶
5. For these crimes, Mr. Baldwin argues that the Government
has the right to protect its ongoing criminal investigation
from early disclosure, but he also says that a defendant has
certain constitutional rights. Id. He maintains that
the inclusion of this relevant conduct invites him “to
surrender these fundamental rights.” Id.
the Court were not to consider the information in paragraph
seven to determine his sentence, Mr. Baldwin still objects to
its inclusion in the PSR. Id. ¶ 6. He complains
that the inclusion of information that he has had no
opportunity to see and challenge would be fundamentally
unfair. Id. Next, he objects to the “inclusion
of conspiracy materials and the [PO's] relevant conduct
calculations and conclusions because the PSR will follow with
the defendant and affect his rights and status after
The Government's Response
response, the Government confirms that it “does not
intend to prove the drug quantity attributed to the defendant
in PSR paragraph 7” and it “will not be asking
the Court to sentence the defendant based on the quantities
reported in that paragraph.” Gov't's
Opp'n at 1. Accordingly, the Court, in the
Government's view, “may conclude that it will not
consider the contents of paragraph 7 in sentencing the
defendant and its sentence will not be affected by the
contents of paragraph 7.” Id. In fact, the
Government states that it suggested to the PO that the PSR
“be revised to remove reference to the matters
contained in paragraph 7, ” but the PO “elected
to keep the matters in the report.” Id. at 1
n.1. Referring to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 and