IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-50228
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ELOY JULIAN CARDENAS BACA,
Defendant-Appellant.
___________________
Consolidated with
01-50229
___________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOSE OBED ESPARZA-GONZALEZ,
Defendant-Appellant,
____________________
Consolidated with
No. 01-50237
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
VICTOR SANCHEZ-MUNOZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC Nos. EP-00-CR-1891-ALL-H,
00-CR-1497-ALL & 00-CR-607-ALL
--------------------
December 12, 2001
No. 01-50228 c/w
Nos. 01-50229 & 01-50237
-2-
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Elroy Julian Cardenas Baca, Jose Obed Esparza-Gonzalez, and
Victor Sanchez-Munoz all argue that they are entitled to be
resentenced because the district court failed to verify that
their counsel had read and discussed their presentence reports
(PSRs) with them prior to sentencing in violation of Fed. R.
Crim. P. 32(c)(3)(A).
We agree that the district court failed to comply with Rule
32(c)(3)(A) in each of the appellants’ cases. However, because
the appellants did not raise the issue of noncompliance in the
district court, the court will correct the error only if it was
plain and affected the appellants’ substantial rights. See
United States v. Esparza-Gonzalez, 268 F.3d 272, 274 (5th Cir.
2001); see also United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-34
(1993).
The appellants failed to object to the Rule 32(c)(3)(A)
violation in the district court. The appellants have not
asserted that they did not review or discuss their PSRs with
their defense counsel, but rely upon their respective records’
failure to indicate that they had reviewed and discussed the PSR
with counsel. Thus, the appellants have not asserted that they
were prejudiced by the court’s Rule 32(c)(3)(A) oversight.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-50228 c/w
Nos. 01-50229 & 01-50237
-3-
Because the appellants have failed to carry their burden of
demonstrating prejudice, i.e., that their substantial rights were
affected, they have not demonstrated plain error. See United
States v. Vasquez, 216 F.3d at 456, 459 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
531 U.S. 972 (2000). The appellants’ convictions and sentences
are AFFIRMED.