United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Jaime Arenas-quintero, Defendant-appellant, 977 F.2d 591 (9th Cir. 1992)
Annotate this CaseBefore CHOY, SNEED and SKOPIL, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM**
Jaime Arenas-Quintero appeals the district court's denial of his Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 motion. Although Arenas-Quintero was sentenced in March, 1987, he did not file his motion until February, 1991. Rule 32 allows a defendant to challenge factual inaccuracies during imposition of the sentence, not later. Once a district court imposes sentence, it lacks jurisdiction under Rule 32 to hear challenges to a presentence report. See United States v. Catabran, 884 F.2d 1288, 1289 (9th Cir. 1989).
Rule 32 challenges may be raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. United States v. Bigman, 906 F.2d 392, 395 (9th Cir. 1990). Arenas-Quintero's failure to raise the challenges during sentencing or on direct appeal, however, waives his right to attack the presentence report through a section 2255 motion. See United States v. Keller, 902 F.2d 1391, 1393 (9th Cir. 1990). Moreover, even if his right to raise the challenges was not waived, we conclude there is no merit to his arguments, and that the district court correctly rejected them.
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for submission on the record and briefs and without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a), Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
