United States v. Eugene Thomas
1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 5916 · 435 F.2d 1303
December 17, 1970 · Docket 30605
Headnotes
Generated summaries- Headnote 1
The rule authorizes the court to provide the report and an opportunity to comment, leaving the decision to disclose entirely within the court’s discretion.
- Headnote 2
The Fifth Circuit has repeatedly held that the decision to release all or part of the report lies within the court’s discretionary authority.
- Headnote 3
The abuse‑of‑discretion standard requires a clear showing of improper conduct by the trial court before reversal is warranted.
- Headnote 4
The appellate court found no abuse of discretion and therefore upheld the lower court’s decision.
- Headnote 5
The Fifth Circuit has repeatedly held that Rule 32 places the disclosure question within the court’s discretion, rather than imposing a mandatory duty, and this court follows that precedent in evaluating Thomas’s appeal.
- Headnote 6
On appeal, a sentencing court’s denial of a motion for a present‑sentence report is reversed only if the appellant demonstrates that the court abused its discretion.
Thomas did not show that the district court’s refusal to provide the report constituted an abuse of discretion; consequently, the appellate court affirmed the denial.
Opinion
Eugene Thomas has appealed from the district court’s denial of his motion for a copy of his presentence report, which he desires to use in connection with a projected attack on his judgment of conviction. We affirm.
Thomas was convicted upon trial by jury of conspiracy to violate civil rights. His conviction was affirmed on appeal, sub nom. Wilkins v. United States, 5 Cir. 1967, 376 F.2d 552, cert. den’d 389 U.S. 964, 88 S.Ct. 342, 19 L.Ed.2d 379.
Rule 32(c), (2), F.R.Crim.P., provides in part that “The court before imposing sentence may disclose to the defendant or his counsel all or part of the material contained in the report of the presentence investigation and afford an opportunity to the defendant or his counsel to comment thereon.”
This Court has consistently held that Rule 32 places the disclosure of the contents of the presentence report, or any part of it, within the sound discretion of the sentencing court. United States v. Rubin, 5 Cir. 1970, 433 F.2d 442; United States v. Bakewell, 5 Cir. 1970, 430 F.2d 721; United States v. Chapman, 5 Cir. 1969, 420 F.2d 925; Roeth v. United States, 5 Cir. 1967, 380 F.2d 755, cert. den’d 390 U.S. 1015, 88 S.Ct. 1266, 20 L.Ed.2d 165. Since Thomas has not shown that the district court abused its discretion, the judgment of the district court denying his motion for a copy of the presentence report is affirmed.