language in [the CVRA] was agreed to."). °! 150 Cong. Rec. H8208-09 (daily ed. Oct. 6, 2004). °2 150 Cong. Rec. $10910 (daily ed. Oct. 9, 2004). % Kenna v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Cent. Dist. of Cal., 435 F.3d 1011, 1015-16 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations and citations omitted); accord United St

at crime victims receive "as much of the report as possible without infringing on specific privacy concerns held by criminal defendants"). 408 In re Kenna, 453 F.3d at 1137. DAVID SCHOEN HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017686 --- PAGE BREAK --- Page 52 of 78 2007 Utah L. Rev. 861, *933 409 _ and presumably they wi

to situations where victims seek "relevant" contents of the presentence report to make a victim impact statement at sentencing. Second, the victim in Kenna sought the entire presentence report. The Ninth Circuit pointedly observed: "We note that Kenna refused the district court's offer to consider disclo

mous rul- ings that crime victims were entitled to reg- ular appellate review. See In re W.R. Huff Asset Mgmt. Co., 409 F.3d 555, 562 (2d Cir. 2005); Kenna v. US. Dist. Ct. for the Cent. Dist. of Ca., 435 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2006); In re Walsh, 229 Fed.Appx. 58, at 60 (8rd Cir. 2007). My next ques