Case: 12-16085 Date Filed: 08/05/2013 Page: 3 of 8
purpose of imposing an appropriate sentence.” 18 U.S.C. § 3661 (emphasis
added). That includes hearsay, so long as it is sufficiently reliable, and evidence
that may not be admissible at trial, as long as the defendant has a chance to rebut
the evidence. United States v. Baker, 432 F.3d 1189, 1253-54 & n.68 (11th Cir.
2005). The Supreme Court has noted that, at sentencing, the district court has
broad discretion to consider “the fullest information possible concerning the
defendant’s life and characteristics.” Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. __, __, 131
S. Ct. 1229, 1235-36 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). We have held that
a court may even consider relevant acquitted conduct so long as that conduct is
proven by a preponderance of the evidence. See United States v. Faust, 456 F.3d
1342, 1348 (11th Cir. 2006).
The Guidelines similarly provide that in deciding whether to sentence a
defendant within or outside of the Guideline range, the court can consider any
information about the defendant’s background, character, and conduct, unless it is
otherwise illegal to do so. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.4. Moreover, under Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 32, the court may allow the parties to introduce evidence
regarding objections to the presentence investigation report (“PSI”) during
sentencing. Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(i)(2).
We conclude from the record that the district court did not err, plainly or
otherwise, in admitting evidence about the 2009 homicide because it was relevant