accurate information during the presentence interview, by noting that any information withheld was done so on the advice of counsel, and by indicating that he is willing to meet again to discuss any additional information sought by the Probation Office. II. DISCUSSION Due process affords defendants the right to be sentenced on the basis of accurate information. United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 447, 92 S.Ct. 589, 30 L.Ed.2d 592 (1972); Townsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. 736, 741, 68 S.Ct. 1252, 92 L.Ed. 1690 (1948). This right is enforced by ensuring that a defendant be provided an opportunity to explain, deny, or correct any information that may have a material effect on the sentence imposed by the Court. See Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349, 362, 97 S.Ct. 1197, 51 L.Ed.2d 393 (1977) (<HOLDING>); Ryder v. Morris, 752 F.2d 327, 332 (8th
holding that defendant waived any objection to the accuracy of the presentence report by failing to object after having been given ample opportunity to do so holding that in a military criminal trial the governments use of classified information without permitting the defendant or his lawyers to view the information did not violate the defendants due process rights holding that due process was violated where a death sentence was imposed based on information in a presentence report and the defendant was not given an opportunity to deny or explain the information holding that the information contained in a presentence report is reliable because it is based upon the presentence officers research of the records contact with relevant agencies and the gathering of information which is required to be included in a presentence report holding that the defendants due process rights to notice were violated when a judge imposed a capital sentence even though the state took the position that it would not seek the death penalty