Duran-Mercado

MEMORANDUM **

Onecimo Duran-Mercado appeals his 168-month sentence following a guilty plea to distribution of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1), (b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(C). We have jurisdiction over this final judgment and sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.

Duran-Mercado contends that the district court erred in not ensuring that he had read his presentence report before sentencing pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 32 (“Rule 32”).

The version of Rule 32 under which Duran-Mercado was sentenced states that before imposing a sentence, a district court must “verify that the defendant and defendant’s counsel have read and discussed the presentence report,” and give them “a reasonable opportunity to comment on that information.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(c)(3)(A) (2002) (current version at Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(i)(1)(A)).

We have previously held that under Rule 32, the court has an affirmative duty to ensure that the defendant and his counsel have read and discussed the presentenee report before sentencing. United States v. Lewis, 880 F.2d 243, 245 (9th Cir.1989). To satisfy this duty, the court need only…