The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has vacated the sentence of D'Angelo Keiyawn Threatt, ruling that the district court failed to ensure he and his attorney reviewed the presentence investigation report (PSR) before sentencing. This decision, filed on July 21, 2026, affects Threatt, who was sentenced to 180 months in prison for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The ruling emphasizes the importance of due process in criminal sentencing.
The case, United States v. Threatt (Docket No. 24-6262), stems from an incident on July 9, 2023, when Oklahoma City police encountered Threatt walking in the road. After a brief struggle, police arrested him and recovered a firearm he discarded during the chase. Threatt later pleaded guilty to the charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm, which led to the preparation of the PSR.
The PSR set Threatt's base offense level at 24 due to his prior felony convictions and recommended enhancements for using a firearm in connection with another felony and for creating a substantial risk of serious injury during his arrest. Despite Threatt's objections to these enhancements, the district court adopted the PSR without verifying whether Threatt had discussed it with his attorney.
During the sentencing hearing, Threatt's attorney affirmed to the court that they had reviewed the PSR. However, Threatt later stated during allocution that he had not discussed the PSR with his counsel, prompting the Circuit Court's review. The court found that the district court did not adequately verify compliance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(1)(A), which requires such verification.
The court ruled that when a defendant asserts they have not reviewed the PSR, the district court must follow up on that assertion. The ruling stated, "When a district court directly asks defense counsel if he and the defendant have read and discussed the PSR, typically, an affirmative answer satisfies the district court’s obligation under Rule 32(i)(1)(A). But when the defendant expressly says otherwise, the district court must follow up on that assertion to satisfy Rule 32(i)(1)(A)." This failure to verify led to the vacating of Threatt's sentence and a remand for resentencing.
The ruling highlights the importance of ensuring that defendants are fully informed about their PSR, which plays a critical role in determining sentencing. The court emphasized that a defendant's right to a fair sentencing process includes the opportunity to review and discuss the PSR with their attorney. The ruling also noted that the district court's failure to verify this could lead to a sentence based on inaccurate information, violating the defendant's due process rights.
Going forward, this decision reinforces the necessity for district courts to adhere strictly to procedural requirements when sentencing. It serves as a reminder that defendants must be given the opportunity to challenge any inaccuracies in their PSR, which can significantly impact their sentencing outcomes. The ruling could influence future cases, ensuring that defendants receive fair treatment and that their rights are protected during the sentencing process.
As for what’s next, Threatt's case will return to the district court for resentencing. The government may also consider whether to appeal this ruling, although details on any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. This case underscores the ongoing discussions about procedural safeguards in the criminal justice system and the importance of ensuring that all defendants receive due process.