Where the Government offers no evidence at sentencing in response to an objection to a factual assertion in the presentence report that increases a sentencing Guidelines range, does Rule 32(i) prohibit the sentencing court from placing the burden of proof on the defendant to support the objection factually, as the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals requires?

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW According to Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007), every federal criminal sentencing must begin with a correctly calculated Guidelines range. Sentencing judges have the power to find facts that increase the Guidelines range—and sentence—based on relevant, uncharged conduct when those facts are proved by a preponderance of the evidence. See United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148 (1997). Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(j) sets out the procedure at sentencing for how a court resolves disputes so that legally found facts drive a court’s Guidelines calculation and sentencing decision. The question presented is: Where the Government offers no evidence at sentencing in response to an objection to a factual assertion in the presentence report that increases a sentencing Guidelines range, does Rule 32(i) prohibit the sentencing court from placing the burden of proof on the defendant to support the objection factually, as the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals requires? No. In the Supreme Court of the United States KENNETH JAMES BARFIELD, PETITIONER, V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Petitioner Kenneth James Barfield asks that a writ of certiorari issue to review the opinion and judgment entered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on October 25, 2019.