Ninth Circuit opines on sentencing practices

The Ninth Circuit has an intriguing little sentencing ruling today in US v. Saeteurn, No. 06-10401 (9th Cir. Oct. 15, 2007) (available here).  Here is how it starts:

This case deals with sentencing practice. Specifically, is the sentencing judge required to resolve disputes regarding facts recited in the Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”), when those facts do not affect the term of imprisonment imposed, but may affect how the sentence is served, including a possible early release from prison?  We hold that there is no such requirement upon the sentencing judge.  We also consider whether the sentencing judge imposed a reasonable sentence in this case.  We conclude that he did.

UPDATE:  Steve Kalar has a new post here at the Ninth Circuit Blog on Saeteurn.  Here is how it starts:

“Close enough for government work” is close enough for the Ninth in a disappointing decision.  See United States v. Saeteurn, __ F.3d __, 2007 WL 2983806 (9th Cir. Oct. 15, 2007).  In Saeteurn (written by Judge Bea), the Court tolerates disputed and erroneous information in a PSR, unresolved by the district court — despite the fact that this error will have a profound impact on the defendant’s conditions of confinement.  A very troubling decision that calls out for en banc review.