United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Dennis Lee Franks, Defendant-appellant, 29 F.3d 635 (9th Cir. 1994)
Annotate this CaseBefore: CHOY, SKOPIL, and FERGUSON, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM**
Dennis Lee Franks appeals the sentence imposed under the Sentencing Guidelines following his guilty plea. He contends that the district court failed to state adequately on the record its reasons for imposing a downward departure. We do not have jurisdiction, however, to review such a contention. See United States v. Dickey, 924 F.2d 836, 838 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 383 (1991); United States v. Vizcarra-Angulo, 904 F.2d 22, 23 (9th Cir. 1990).
Franks also argues that the district court failed to determine whether he reviewed the presentence report prior to sentencing. We agree that the court's failure violates Federal Rule Criminal Procedure 32(a) (1) (A). See United States v. Sustaita, 1 F.3d 950, 953-54 (9th Cir. 1993). Nevertheless, the error is harmless when it is clear that no prejudice resulted. Id. at 954. Here, Franks does not claim that he did not read or discuss the report with counsel, nor does he identify any fact in the report that he was prevented from disputing. These factors cause us to conclude that the error was harmless. See id. (citing United States v. Rodriguez-Luna, 937 F.2d 1208, 1213 (7th Cir. 1991) (identifying factors)).
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.
