ORDER - MEMORANDUM
EDMUND V. LUDWIG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
AND NOW, this 3rd day of February, 1987, defendant's motion for correction and reduction of sentence under Rule 35(a) and (b) is ruled on as follows:
The transcript of the sentencing proceeding held March 18, 1986 and a copy of this order are directed to be appended to and shall accompany the presentence investigation report and shall be made available to the Bureau of Prisons and the Parole Commission. Otherwise, the motion is denied.
On January 24, 1986 defendant was found guilty by a jury of filing false individual income tax returns for 1980, 1981, and 1982. 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1). On March 18, 1986 he was sentenced to three years imprisonment, five years probation, a fine of $ 10,000 and restitution as determined by the Internal Revenue Service. Bail was revoked, and defendant surrendered himself shortly after sentencing. The mandate of affirmance occurred December 1, 1986. The present motion was filed January 9, 1987 and answered January 14.
The motion states that defendant's offense has been given a category 5 severity rating because the Parole Commission determined the amount of the tax evasion to be more than $ 100,000 but not more than $ 500,000. According to the motion, that determination was based solely on the presentence investigation report, which said that the Internal Revenue Service had calculated defendant's tax liabilities, interest, and penalties for the three years to be in the total amount of $ 496,334.49. The motion asserts that defendant's projected release date for a category 5 offense is April 14, 1988 and that if the tax evasion were for a lesser amount than $ 100,000, a category 2 severity rating, he would be eligible for release in March, 1987. The motion notes that at sentencing defendant's motion to delete from the presentence report the income tax liability calculations of the Internal Revenue Service - because they were not based on any evidence received at trial- was refused.
"So if you're requesting that I not consider such information for the purpose of sentence, I will certainly entertain that request, but I'm not going to direct that something be removed from the report. . . . The report has already been made, but I am disinclined to consider for sentencing purposes information that is not derived from the trial or from evidence that is produced in the sentencing proceeding itself."
Tr., Mar. 18, 1986