IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-50810
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CARLOS ANTONIO SARABIA-VILLANTA,
also known as David Sepeda-Hernandez,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. DR-99-CR-121-1
- - - - - - - - - -
October 3, 2000
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Carlos Antonio Sarabia-Villanta appeals his conviction and
sentence for illegal presence after being deported. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326. He argues that during sentencing the district court
failed to verify whether he and counsel had read and discussed
the presentence report. He further argues that, as an issue of
first impression, this court should not apply the harmless error
standard to the district court’s omission. Rather, he argues
that the case should be remanded for resentencing regardless of
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 99-50810
-2-
whether the omission resulted in prejudice. In the alternative,
Sarabia argues that the district court’s omission prejudiced his
defense because he was unaware of the factors relied on in
sentencing and was unable to challenge the reliability or
relevance of those factors.
The district court’s failure to comply with Fed. R. Crim. P.
32(c)(3)(A) is harmless. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a); United
States v. Sustaita, 1 F.3d 950, 954 (9th Cir. 1993); cf. United
States v. Vasquez, 216 F.3d 456, 458-59 (5th Cir. 2000)(holding
that unobjected Rule 32(c)(3)(B) errors are reviewed for plain
error). Sarabia does not demonstrate that the district court’s
omission affected the outcome of the proceeding. See United
States v. Munoz, 150 F.3d 401, 412-13 (5th Cir. 1998).
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
Sarabia also requests permission to file a supplemental
brief in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Apprendi v. New
Jersey, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000). This motion is DENIED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.