After pleading guilty to federal narcotics charges, Petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment based entirely on unverified in-court testimony by agents recounting unsworn statements made by unsentenced cooperators during debriefings. Petitioner was denied cross-examination of the cooperators.

On appeal, Petitioner contended that his sentence rested on constitutionally offensive misinformation and should be reviewed de novo—as the Sixth Circuit has held and the Eighth Circuit does in the closely analogous context of revocation of supervised release. However, the court below reviewed only for abuse of discretion, as if the cooperators had appeared in-court, despite acknowledging that four courts of appeals apply the less deferential clear-error standard.

The question presented is whether the Court should resolve this conflict by requiring de novo review (or at a minimum, review for clear error).

Whether the Court should require de novo review (or at a minimum, review for clear error) of sentencing fact-findings based entirely on uncorroborated hearsay from unsentenced cooperators