opportunity to make a statement during his interview and he declined,
insisting on the presence of counsel. However, Ligon was not entitled to
the assistance of counsel during the presentence interview. See Baumann
v. United States, 692 F.2d 565, 578 (9th Cir. 1982) (holding that the
presentence interview in a noncapital case was not a critical stage of the
proceedings necessitating the assistance of counsel). But see United States
v. Herrera Figueroa, 918 F.2d 1430, 1431, 1433 (9th Cir. 1990) (applying
-
its supervisory power, the court held that the probation officer must honor
a request by a defendant that counsel be present at the interview).
Further, the district court provided Ligon the opportunity to bring
relevant information to its attention at the sentencing hearing. Although
the PSI did not contain the information that Ligon wanted it to contain, he
did not demonstrate that it contained impalpable or highly suspect
evidence. See Stockmeier v. State, Bd. of Parole Comm'rs, 127 Nev. ,
, 255 P.3d 209, 213 (2011) ("[T]he PSI must not include information
based on 'impalpable or highly suspect evidence." (quoting Goodson v.
State, 98 Nev. 493, 495-96, 654 P.2d 1006, 1007 (1982))). As to his
assertion regarding the allegation of gang affiliation, the record does not
indicate that the district court based its sentencing decision on this
allegation. See Silks v. State, 92 Nev. 91, 94, 545 P.2d 1159, 1161 (1976)
(noting that this court will refrain from interfering with a sentence "[s]
long as the record does not demonstrate prejudice resulting from
consideration of information or accusations founded on facts supported
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A sera
only by impalpable or highly suspect evidence"). Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
,
Hardesty
Douglas
cc: Hon. Jerome T. Tao, District Judge
Legal Resource Group
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
10) 1947A cein