United States v. Threatt.
No. 24-6262. 7/21/2026. W.D.Okla. Judge Carson. US Sentencing Guidelines—Fed. R. Crim. Proc. 32(i)(1)(A)—Court’s Duty to Verify Review of Presentence Investigation Report—Prejudice—Harmless Error.
July 21, 2026
Threatt pleaded guilty to one count of felon in possession of a firearm. His presentence investigation report (PSR) set his base offense level at 24 due to Threatt’s prior felony convictions, and it recommended two sentence enhancements. The first added four offense levels for using a firearm in connection with another felony offense, alleging that a month after his arrest in this case, Threatt hit a person across the face with a firearm. The second enhancement added six offense levels for creating a substantial risk of serious bodily injury in assaulting an officer during his arrest. Three offense levels were subtracted for acceptance of responsibility, resulting in a total offense level at 31. Combined with Threatt’s criminal history category VI, this offense level set his advisory US Sentencing Guidelines (USSG) range at 188 to 235 months. Because the statutorily authorized maximum sentence for Threatt’s offense was 15 years, the PSR calculated his advisory USSG range at 180 months. Threatt made several factual objections to the PSR. At the sentencing hearing, the district court asked defense counsel if he had reviewed and discussed the PSR with Threatt. Defense counsel said he had. The district court then overruled all of Threatt’s objections and adopted the PSR in full. Defense counsel argued for a downward variance, and the district court allowed Threatt to allocute. During his allocution, Threatt stated that his attorney never went over his PSR with him. The district court declined to take up the issue and sentenced Threatt to 180 months.
On an initial matter on appeal, the parties disputed the applicable standard of review, with the government asserting that Threatt’s statement during allocution did not put the court on notice of a Fed. R. Crim. Proc. 32 issue, so Threatt did not properly preserve the issue for appeal. The Tenth Circuit concluded that Threatt’s statement during allocution that his counsel did not review his PSR with him should have put the district court on notice that it needed to verify that Threatt and his counsel had read and discussed the PSR, especially given counsel’s seemingly contrary assertion. Accordingly, the matter was reviewed for harmless error.
On the merits, Threatt argued that the district court violated Rule 32(i)(1)(A) by imposing his sentence without first verifying that he and his counsel had read and discussed the PSR. Rule 32(i)(1)(A) requires district courts to “verify” that a defendant and his attorney have read and discussed the PSR. When a defendant expressly states that this has not occurred, the district court must inquire further to satisfy Rule 32(i)(1)(A). Here, Threatt told the district court that his attorney never went over his PSR with him, but the district court did not verify his statement. Therefore, the district court violated Rule 32(i)(1)(A). Further, Threatt stated that the PSR included multiple factual inaccuracies that he would have challenged had counsel reviewed the PSR with him. And had he been able to challenge the inaccuracies, his advisory USSG range and ultimate sentence would have been much lower. Threatt was thus prejudiced by the error, so it was not harmless.
The sentence was vacated and the case was remanded for resentencing.