This Court's precedent precludes the use of clearly erroneous facts to influence a criminal defendant's sentence. Here, the district court assumed the petitioner made a prior promise to not return to the United States but never confirmed that assumption with evidence.

This petition asks the Court to resolve a circuit split on what test should be used to define a clearly erroneous fact in the sentencing context. Specifically, should that test take into account whether the challenged fact is reliable?

Whether the test for a clearly erroneous fact in the sentencing context should consider the reliability of the challenged fact