Parras-Smith
United States v. Parras-Smith
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Leopoldo Parras-Smith appeals (No. 01-50454) the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1). Parras-Smith also appeals (No. 01-50198), the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss Count 2 of the indictment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (a). We review de novo the district court’s compliance with Fed.R.Crim.P. 32, United States v. Herrera-Rojas, 243 F.3d 1139, 1142 (9th Cir.2001), as well as the legality of a guideline sentence, United States v. Jackson, 176 F.3d 1175, 1176 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam). We affirm No. 01-50454 and dismiss No. 01-50198.
Parras-Smith contends that the district court failed to strictly comply with Rule 32. We disagree. The record shows that the district court considered both the Presentence Report and Parras-Smith’s objections thereto in resolving the disputed issues. See United States v. Houston, 217 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir.2000) (“Although the district court’s findings under Rule 32(c) must be express, they need only state the court’s resolution of the disputed issues.”)…