Case Explained: USA V. FEJERAN

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-08

Docket: 1:24-cr-00003-JCC-1

The ninth-circuit vacated the defendant’s 120-month sentence and remanded the case for resentencing because the district court failed to comply with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(3)(B). Under this rule, when a defendant disputes the factual accuracy of a presentence report (PSR), the sentencing court must explicitly rule on the dispute or determine that a ruling is unnecessary. The district court merely overruled Fejeran’s objections to specific factual assertions regarding her role in the offense without making explicit factual findings or stating that those facts were irrelevant to sentencing; such post-sentencing adoption of the PSR cannot cure this procedural error. Additionally, the court held that the district judge’s silence on the disputed facts rendered the denial of safety-valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) unreviewable and erroneous. Because the record did not clarify whether the sentencing enhancement applied or explicitly address other eligibility factors required by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c), the appellate court could not determine the basis for denying relief. Consequently, the case is remanded to the district court to conduct a proper resentencing hearing that addresses these procedural requirements.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.