The district court was permitted to and did, in fact, review the post-sentence rehabilitation evidence that Censke submitted with his sentencing memorandum and addendum, i.e., his documented coursework and Dr. Rhinehart's psychological reports from 2010. See Pepper, 131 S. Ct. at 1241-42; United States v. Carter, 444 F. App'x 862, 864-65 (6th Cir. 2011), Counsel conceded at the resentencing that the district court was not obligated to order an updated PSR under either Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(c) or 18 U.S.C. § 3552(a), but that "it would seem reasonable that the Court would want an updated report."
The district court was permitted to and did, in fact, review the post-sentence rehabilitation evidence that Censke submitted with his sentencing memorandum and addendum, i.e., his documented coursework and Dr. Rhinehart's psychological reports from 2010. See Pepper, 131 S.Ct. at 1241-42; United States v. Carter, 444 Fed.Appx. 862, 864-65 (6th Cir.2011),Counsel conceded at the resentencing that the district court was not obligated to order an updated PSR under either Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(c) or 18 U.S.C. § 3552(a), but that "it would seem reasonable that the Court would want an updated report."