United States v. Jaime Arenas-Quintero

Good Law
977 F.2d 591·1992 WL 276482·1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 36094
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 8, 199291-50864California305 words

Opinion

Opinion

977 F.2d 591 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jaime ARENAS-QUINTERO, Defendant-Appellant. No. 91-50864. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Aug. 21, 1992. * Decided Oct. 8, 1992. Before CHOY, SNEED and SKOPIL, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 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). 3 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…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.