United States v. James Bennett

MEMORANDUM

James Bennett (Bennett) appeals the district court’s imposition of the same 121-month sentence upon remand. See United States v. Bennett, 621 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir.2010). We affirm the district court.

1. In our mandate, we vacated the district court judgment only as to the “conviction and sentence for counts eight through ten.” Id. at 1140 . “It follows that the district court was without jurisdiction to review [Bennett’s] arguments]” regarding other matters. United States v. Luong, 627 F.3d 1306, 1311 (9th Cir.2010). Accordingly, the district court did not err when it declined to rule on other issues raised in Bennett’s motions to dismiss.

2. Because the district court proceeded with sentencing even though Bennett had not reviewed the Pre-Sentence Report (PSR), and the addendum to the PSR, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 was violated. See United States v. Soltero, 510 F.3d 858, 863-64 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam), as amended. However, because Bennett failed to identify how his failure to review the report was prejudicial to his sentencing, the district court’s violation of Rule 32 was harmless error. See id.; cf. United States v. Reyes-Ceja, 712 F.3d 1284 , No.…