United States v. Rudolph

In United States v. Rudolph, —- F.4th —-, No. 21-30739 (5th Cir. May 30, 2024), the Fifth Circuit vacated the defendant’s 262-month sentence and remanded his case for resentencing because when a “district court adopts ‘facts’ in a Pre-Sentence Report that lack an adequate evidentiary basis with sufficient indicia of reliability, it has committed clear error.”

Background: After Rudolph pled guilty to a drug conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A), his PSR designated him a career offender under USSG § 4B1.1(a) based on two prior drug offenses. Rudolph conceded that one qualified as a career-offender predicate offense, but he disputed the other.

The PSR asserted that Rudolph had been convicted of possession with the intent to distribute cocaine in 1996 and that his parole had been revoked in 2004. The latter date was crucial because the conviction would not satisfy the career-offender requirements unless he had been incarcerated for that prior case within 15 years of the commencement of the instant offense. See USSG §§ 4A1.2(e)(1) & (k)(1); 4B1.1(a); 4B1.2(c).

Although the PSR said that parole had been revoked in 2004, it “provided nothing more than the assertion that ‘court records’ supported [that] claim.” Rudolph objected that there needed to be “substantive proof” he was on parole within the 15-year window. “The district court acknowledged the lack of adequate evidence supporting the claim that Rudolph’s parole was revoked for the 1996 drug offense in 2004 and found the matter ‘peculiar,’” but it adopted the PSR anyway.

Held: “The Government did not meet its burden to prove by a preponderance of evidence that the 1996 conviction qualified for the career offender enhancement. The ‘fact’ that Rudolph was revoked in 2004 for his 1996 drug conviction does not have an adequate evidentiary basis, and, therefore, the district court should not have adopted this ‘fact’ as true.”

A defendant is not required to present evidence to rebut the PSR’s claim if “the Government’s evidence [including statements in the PSR] lacks an adequate evidentiary basis.” Given the lack of evidence here, the “district court’s adoption of this fact and application of the career offender enhancement was clear error.” Therefore, the Fifth Circuit vacated Rudolph’s sentence and remanded his case for resentencing.