In actuality, the Probation Department did not prepare a "new and revised" pre-sentence investigation report in anticipation of Petitioner's re-sentencing. (See Doc. No. 232, at 1 n. 2; Def's Mot. for Downward Departure 1 n. 2 ("No new [report] had been prepared.").) Along with the case at bar, Dolbin lists the docket number for his recent appeal, United States v. Dolbin, No. 05-3673 (3d Cir.), in the "Case Number" section of his application. The Third Circuit issued its opinion in that case on July 3, 2007.

InRita, the Supreme Court held that "[t]he sentencing judge should set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the parties' arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority." United States v. Dolbin, 2007 WL 1893235, at *3 (3d Cir. July 3, 2007) (quotingRita, 2007 WL 1772146, at *12). The Supreme Court continues that "[w]here a matter is conceptually simple . . . and the record makes clear that the sentencing judge considered the evidence and arguments, we do not believe the law requires that the judge write more extensively."