1IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXASBEAUMONT
DIVISIONUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,v.CALVIN WALKER §§§§§Crim. Action No. 1:11-CR-67JUDGE RON CLARK
The probation officer in this case submitted a carefully prepared Presentence InvestigationReport.
Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(1). As required by Rule 32, the Report in this case sets out certaincategories of information to aid the court in determining the sentence, such as the offense level, thecriminal history category, calculation of the guideline range, factors relevant to determining anappropriate sentence within the guideline range, and possible grounds for departure. The PresentenceInvestigation Report is intended to aid the court. The probation officer attempts to provide the courtwith a neutral evaluation of the factors that affect the court’s determination of a sentence.Once the Report is filed, either party may object to “material information, sentencingguideline ranges, and policy statements contained in or omitted from the report.” Fed. R. Crim. P.32(f)(1). Objections to the exact wording of paragraphs in the Report that do not affect the criminalhistory category, the offense level, grounds for departure, policy statements, or determination of thesentence are generally not material, and a ruling is unnecessary.Mr. Walker filed eight objections to the Presentence Investigation Report, several of whichwere later agreed to by the parties. For the reasons discussed on the record at the December 12, 2012sentencing hearing, the court finds that a determination of those objections which remain outstandingis unnecessary because they do not affect the sentencing. The court is not inclined to require a
Case 1:11-cr-00067-RC-KFG Document 169 Filed 12/12/12 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 3816