does a defendant have an obligation to prove the facts in the PSR are inaccurate or untrue after the defendant objects to the factual statements and the guideline application within the PSR or does the Government have an obligation at a sentencing hearing to establish such facts by a preponderance

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Borden made written objections to the PSR’s drug quantity calculation. He objected to both the factual statements and the guideline application. The drug quantity in the PSR was based upon statements given by a co-conspirator named Stuart. Stuart also testified at Borden’s sentencing hearing. At the sentencing hearing, Borden cross-examined Stuart and the case agent to whom Stuart had given the prior statements. This established large inconsistencies within Stuart’s various prior statements and his testimony. On appeal, Borden challenged the trial court’s findings as not being supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The Fifth Circuit held that Borden did not meet his burden of presenting evidence to show that the facts in the PSR are inaccurate or materially untrue. The question presented is “does a defendant have an obligation to prove the facts in the PSR are inaccurate or untrue after the defendant objects to the factual statements and the guideline application within the PSR or does the Government have an obligation at a sentencing hearing to establish such facts by a preponderance.”