NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 12 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-50035
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
2:12-cr-00995-TJH-1
v.
WILLIAM ARTHUR STEHL, AKA MEMORANDUM *
William A. Stehl,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Terry J. Hatter, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted April 4, 2017
Pasadena, California
Before: PLAGER,** BEA, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Defendant William Arthur Stehl appeals from his conviction entered
following a guilty plea and from a 144-month sentence for conspiracy to commit
mail fraud (18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1349), false statements to federal agents (18 U.S.C.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable S. Jay Plager, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.
§ 1001), tax evasion (26 U.S.C. § 7201), and tax fraud (26 U.S.C. § 7206). As the
parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We affirm in part,
vacate in part, and remand.
1. We reject Stehl’s contention that the district court violated Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 32(e)(1) by deferring acceptance of his guilty plea, made
pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), until after the court
reviewed the presentence report (“PSR”). See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(e)(1) (“Unless
the defendant has consented in writing, the probation officer must not submit a
presentence report to the court or disclose its contents to anyone until the defendant
has pleaded guilty or nolo contendere, or has been found guilty.”). Despite the
district court’s comments at the change-of-plea hearing, looking at the entire
record, there is insufficient evidence that the court actually reviewed the PSR
before accepting Stehl’s guilty plea. See Gregg v. United States, 394 U.S. 489,
493 (1969) (affirming a defendant’s conviction where “[t]he trial judge did not
state that he read the presentence report before the jury verdict was delivered, nor
is there any direct evidence in this record that he did”).
Moreover, Stehl failed to object to the alleged Rule 32 violation in the
district court. Even if the district court did review the PSR prematurely, Stehl has
not shown that he was prejudiced. As such, there was no plain error. See United
States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734 (1993).
2
2. The parties agree that a remand for resentencing is appropriate based on the
district court’s statements that it chose Stehl’s sentence, in part, to provide him
“with needed medical care or other correctional treatment in the most effective
manner.” See Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319, 321 (2011) (holding that
federal courts are precluded “from imposing or lengthening a prison term in order
to promote a criminal defendant’s rehabilitation”). We decline to grant the
government’s request for a limited remand, and remand for the district court to
resentence Stehl on an open record.
AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
3