Lopez-Hernandez

MEMORANDUM ***

In adopting the sentencing recommendations and findings in the probation office’s pre-sentence report on the appellant Lopez’ guilty plea, the district court satisfied the requirement in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(3)(B) that the court rule on disputed portions of the report. Lopez objected to the details surrounding two of his prior criminal convictions, which he contended distorted the facts surrounding those crimes. The district court dealt with this contention, asking Lopez whether his changed descriptions of his prior conduct would alter his criminal history set forth in the report. Lopez conceded it would not, and also admitted to two of the convictions described in the report.

The district court’s inquiry satisfied Rule 32. See United States v. Riley, 335 F.3d 919, 932 (9th Cir.2003) (citing United States v. Tam, 240 F.3d 797, 803-04 (9th Cir.2001)). As the court explained: “I find the report to be accurate and correct. I adopt the report and the calculation of the advisory guidelines.” The district court thus considered but rejected Lopez’s contention.

The district court adequately explained the reasons it imposed a 77 month sentence, rather…