In the United States v. Jerry E. Wells and Kenneth R. Steele case of 1996, the Supreme Court ruled on whether a sentencing court could consider uncharged conduct when determining an appropriate sentence for convicted defendants under federal guidelines. The two defendants, Wells and Steele, were found guilty of bank fraud but argued that their sentences should not be enhanced based on relevant conduct related to alleged additional losses which they had neither been charged with nor admitted to causing. However, the Supreme Court upheld their sentences in a unanimous decision stating that it was permissible for courts to take into account all relevant conduct when deciding upon a sentence under federal guidelines - including uncharged or acquitted offenses - as long as those considerations met certain standards of proof.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Jerry E. Wells and Kenneth R. Steele, Justice Scalia disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(c)(3)(D). He argued that this rule does not require a district court to make explicit findings about disputed facts when sentencing defendants; rather, it only requires courts to note any unresolved disputes in the presentence report (PSR). In his view, if a defendant challenges information in their PSR but fails to convince the court that it is incorrect or irrelevant, then there is no "unresolved" dispute requiring notation under Rule 32(c)(3)(D). Furthermore, he contended that even if such an obligation did exist under this rule, its violation should be considered harmless error unless there was reasonable doubt as to whether it affected the sentence imposed by trial judges. Therefore, he believed that remanding these cases for resentencing was unnecessary because both defendants had failed to show how alleged errors in their PSRs might have influenced their sentences.