United States v. David Chow

30 F.3d 140 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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. David CHOW, Defendant-Appellant. No. 93-50107. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Aug. 2, 1994. Decided Aug. 4, 1994. 1 Before: D.W. NELSON and NOONAN, Circuit Judges, and KING, * District Judge 2 MEMORANDUM ** 3 David Chow appeals his resentencing following his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 . Chow contends that the district court erred by failing to resolve three disputed factual matters in the presentence report (PSR) as required by Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(c)(3)(D). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 and affirm. 4 We review de novo the district court's compliance with Fed.R.Crim.P. 32. United States v. Maree, 934 F.2d 196, 199 (9th Cir.1991). Rule 32 requires the district court to make factual findings regarding any disputed issues in the PSR or determine that a finding…