United States v. Carl W. Mathisen

103 F.3d 142 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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. Carl W. MATHISEN, Defendant-Appellant. No. 96-30190. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Dec. 2, 1996. * Decided Dec. 06, 1996. Before: SNEED, TROTT and THOMAS, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Federal prisoner Carl W. Mathisen appeals pro se the district court's denial of his motion to direct the United States Probation Officer to prepare a revised presentence report (PSR) which would incorporate factual findings the district court made at Mathisen's sentencing hearing in 1989. Mathisen contends that because these findings never have been appended properly to his PSR, the United States Parole Commission and the Bureau of Prisons have ignored the district court's findings and rely solely on uncorrected information in his PSR. 3 The district court properly concluded it lacked jurisdiction over Mathisen's motion because to the extent he is…