IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-50135
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JUAN JOSE ESPINOZA-GONZALEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
___________________
No. 01-50216
___________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
PEDRO ALVITER-SEGURA,
Defendant-Appellant.
___________________
No. 01-50329
___________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GUSTAVO GARCIA-LOPEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
___________________
No. 01-50377
___________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ABEL GERARDO HUERTA-VELASQUEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 01-50135 c/w
No. 01-50216
No. 01-50329
No. 01-50377
-2-
--------------------
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. DR-00-CR-521-1-FB
--------------------
December 7, 2001
Before JONES, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
In unrelated cases, Juan Jose Espinoza-Gonzalez, Pedro
Alviter-Segura, Gustavo Garcia-Lopez, and Abel Gerardo Huerta-
Velasquez appeal from their sentences following guilty pleas to
charges of illegal reentry into the United States subsequent to
deportation. The cases have been consolidated on appeal. All
defendants argue that the district court erred at sentencing by
failing to inquire whether the defendants and counsel had read
their presentence reports ("PSR") in violation of Fed. R. Crim.
P. 32(c)(3)(A). They contend that this error requires remand for
resentencing.
We agree with the defendants that the district court failed
to comply with Rule 32(c)(3)(A). However, because the defendants
did not raise the issue of noncompliance in the district court,
we will correct the error only if it was plain and affected their
substantial rights. See United States v. Esparza-Gonzalez, __
F.3d __ (5th Cir. Sept. 26, 2001, No. 01-50213), 2001 WL
1135317, at *1; see also United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725,
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-50135 c/w
No. 01-50216
No. 01-50329
No. 01-50377
-3-
732-34 (articulating the plain error standard of review). The
defendants have failed to show that the district court's error
was prejudicial and have not demonstrated plain error. Esparza-
Gonzalez, 2001 WL 1135317 at *1.
AFFIRMED.