Filed: May 28, 2018
Latest Update: May 28, 2018
Summary: ORDER MARTIN REIDINGER , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant's "Motion to Amend Presentence Report & Addendum to Presentence Report" [Doc. 439]. The Defendant moves for an Order correcting the record contained in his Presentence Report (PSR). Specifically, the Defendant notes that the PSR states that the Defendant reported to the probation officer that "he experimented with marijuana approximately four years prior to the commencement of his instant offense a
Summary: ORDER MARTIN REIDINGER , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant's "Motion to Amend Presentence Report & Addendum to Presentence Report" [Doc. 439]. The Defendant moves for an Order correcting the record contained in his Presentence Report (PSR). Specifically, the Defendant notes that the PSR states that the Defendant reported to the probation officer that "he experimented with marijuana approximately four years prior to the commencement of his instant offense an..
More
ORDER
MARTIN REIDINGER, District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant's "Motion to Amend Presentence Report & Addendum to Presentence Report" [Doc. 439].
The Defendant moves for an Order correcting the record contained in his Presentence Report (PSR). Specifically, the Defendant notes that the PSR states that the Defendant reported to the probation officer that "he experimented with marijuana approximately four years prior to the commencement of his instant offense and he no longer uses this substance." [Doc. 291 at 52 ¶ 200]. The Defendant states, however, that this statement was false, and that the PSR should be corrected to note that the Defendant regularly used marijuana until his arrest for the instant offense. [Doc. 439 at 2].1
Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides a means by which a defendant can file objections to the PSR. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(f). The Defendant, however, did not object to the PSR on this basis, nor did he raise this issue on direct appeal. Accordingly, the Defendant has waived further challenge to his PSR. See United States v. Emanuel, 869 F.2d 795, 796 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Scott, 8 F. App'x 275, 276 (4th Cir. 2001) (per curiam).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendant's "Motion to Amend Presentence Report & Addendum to Presentence Report" [Doc. 439] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
