“No Reliance, No Reversal” – The Seventh Circuit’s Refined Standard for PSR Errors in United States v. Swartz

1. Introduction

In United States v. David Swartz, No. 24-2459 (7th Cir. 2025), the Court of Appeals confronted a familiar but nagging problem in federal sentencing: What happens when the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) contains an undisputed numerical error, yet the district judge still imposes a monetary punishment that lies comfortably within statutory and Guidelines limits? The appellant, David Swartz, claimed the mis-stated “net worth” figure violated his due-process right to be sentenced on accurate information and rendered the $10,000 fine unlawful under 18 U.S.C. § 3572. The Seventh Circuit—through Judge Lee—affirmed, drawing a clear doctrinal line: unless the record shows that the district court explicitly relied on the erroneous fact, the mere presence of the inaccuracy does not amount to reversible error.

The decision tightens what “reliance” means, provides fresh guidance on § 3572’s fine-imposition factors, and signals how courts should handle clerical PSR mistakes going forward.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• Error Identified – PSR originally calculated Swartz’s net worth at \$268,329. After corrections, the assets figure changed but the net-worth line was not re-computed, leaving an erroneously high amount.
• Sentence – 18-month term (not at issue), \$181,915.92 restitution (partially prepaid) and a \$10,000 fine (low end of the Guidelines fine range).
• Appellant’s Arguments
  • Due-process violation: sentencing based on inaccurate information.
  • § 3572(a) & (b) violation: court failed to consider correct financial capacity and impairment to restitution.
• Holding – Affirmed. No procedural error because the district court did not rely on the erroneous net-worth figure; and the court adequately considered § 3572 factors.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

“The standard for determining whether the district court relied on improper information is a low one.” – United States v. Miller, 900 F.3d 509 (7th Cir. 2018)

• Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) – Reaffirmed that selecting a sentence on “clearly erroneous facts” is a significant procedural error. Gall supplies the overarching standard.
• United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443 (1972) & Townsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. 736 (1948) – Cornerstone cases on due-process rights at sentencing; both involved affirmative judicial discussion of false criminal histories, making them prototypes of “reliance.”
• United States v. Miller, 900 F.3d 509 (7th Cir. 2018) – Defendant’s convictions were miscounted; district court expressly referenced the wrong number multiple times. Swartz contrasted his facts to Miller.
• United States v. Barnes, 907 F.2d 693 (7th Cir. 1990) and U.S. ex rel. Welch v. Lane, 738 F.2d 863 (7th Cir. 1984) – Developed the “explicit attention / specific consideration” test to prove reliance.
• United States v. Burke, 148 F.3d 832 (7th Cir. 1998) – Stood for the proposition that incorporating the PSR by reference can constitute findings of fact; but Swartz’s invocation failed because Burke was “fact-specific.”
• Recent § 3572 fine cases (Johnson 2025; Lee 2020; Bauer 1997) – Provided framework for reviewing whether a court sufficiently articulated the statutory factors.

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Reliance Standard Clarified
   • Error + Reliance are both prerequisites to reversal (Pennington, Miller).
   • Reliance exists where the judge “gives explicit attention,” “specific consideration,” or bases the sentence “in part” on the inaccurate datum.
   • Mere adoption of the PSR, absent a targeted reference to the erroneous piece, is insufficient.
   • Here: the judge never uttered “net worth”; instead relied on accurate sub-components (assets, liabilities, monthly cash flow). The court had read Swartz’s memorandum flagging the error, further undercutting any inference of reliance.
2. Application of § 3572(a) Factors
   • The court need not tick through every factor on the record; it must simply be “clear” that they were considered. Reference to significant assets, limited liabilities, and positive cash flow sufficed.
   • Because the fine imposed (\$10,000) was at the low end of the Guidelines range and comfortably below Swartz’s corrected net worth, the Seventh Circuit deemed the findings reasonable and not clearly erroneous.
3. § 3572(b) “Impairment to Restitution” Inquiry
   • Math drove the analysis: corrected net worth \$143,329 – \$10,000 fine still leaves \$133,329, easily eclipsing the unpaid restitution (\$31,915.92). Therefore, no impairment.
   • Swartz’s speculative claims of post-incarceration unemployment were unavailing given his MBA, professional background, and quarter-million-dollar liquidity (after restitution agreed).

3.3 Impact of the Decision

• Narrows Path for PSR-Error Appeals – Defendants must now point to on-record comments or findings demonstrating express reliance on the wrong fact; a silent record will presumptively defeat due-process claims.
• Encourages Bench-Bar Clarity – Judges are reminded (see n.1 of the opinion) to make explicit findings on contested PSR issues to prevent appellate uncertainty, yet the decision also protects courts from reversible error where mistakes were immaterial.
• Refines § 3572 Fine Jurisprudence – Affirms that a brief but reasoned reference to assets/liabilities satisfies the statute; comprehensive balance-sheets are unnecessary when the numbers plainly support ability to pay.
• Practical Effects
  • Probation officers will likely double-check summary computations (e.g., net worth) to avoid unnecessary satellite litigation.
  • Defense counsel must create a clear record of alleged inaccuracies and prompt the judge for explicit rulings if they wish to preserve a viable appellate argument.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) – A comprehensive report produced by probation officers summarizing offense conduct, criminal history, personal background, and financial condition; heavily relied upon at sentencing.
• Guidelines Offense Level / Fine Range – The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines assign numeric offense levels; here Level 16 yielded a suggested fine range of \$10k–\$95k (U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2).
• Due Process at Sentencing – The Fifth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to be sentenced on accurate information; reversal requires both inaccuracy and judicial reliance.
• 18 U.S.C. § 3572
  • Subsection (a): directs courts to consider income, earning capacity, financial resources, burden on dependents, restitution needs, etc.
  • Subsection (b): bars fines that impair restitution payments.
• Standard of Review
  • Procedural error claims: de novo (fresh look) as to whether an error occurred.
  • Underlying factual findings: “clear-error” review (deferential) if the statutory factors were addressed.

5. Conclusion

United States v. Swartz fortifies a pragmatic rule: clerical mishaps in a PSR do not command resentencing unless the district judge demonstrably built the sentence on the erroneous data. The Seventh Circuit’s articulation of “reliance” provides both a shield for district courts when inaccuracies are harmless and a roadmap for litigants seeking reversible error. Coupled with its streamlined reading of § 3572, the opinion should reduce needless appeals while still safeguarding the fundamental due-process guarantee of accurate sentencing. Going forward, practitioners must ensure the record unmistakably captures any claimed error and the judge’s treatment of it—because without “explicit attention,” the maxim now stands: no reliance, no reversal.