United States v. Saul Perez-Patino, AKA Antonio Rodriguez-Gonzalez

89 F.3d 847 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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. Saul PEREZ-PATINO, aka Antonio Rodriguez-Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellant. No. 95-30254. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted April 22, 1996. * Decided April 29, 1996. Before: HALL, THOMPSON and RYMER, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Saul Perez-Patino appeals his 60-month sentence following a guilty plea to attempting to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1). He contends the district court erred by failing to determine whether Perez-Patino had read the presentence report (PSR) and discussed it with his attorney, as required by Fed.R.Crim.P. 32, and by failing to grant him a downward departure. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (a), 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and affirm. 3 The government concedes that the sentencing judge failed to verify that Perez-Patino had read the PSR and discussed it with his attorney, as…