U.S. v. Peterson

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 168-month term of incarceration on bank robbery charges even though Dist. Ct. made reference to portions of probation officer’s confidential sentencing recommendation when imposing said sentence. Ct. rejected defendant’s claim that probation officer’s confidential sentencing recommendation violated defendant’s 5th and 6th Amendment rights where record showed that defendant had received and had opportunity to comment on all facts supporting said recommendation, and that defendant’s counsel had presented comprehensive arguments based on said facts.