United States v. Harvard

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: July 7, 2000
• Docket: 99-40660
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

No. 99-50878 -1-

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-40660 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JACK C. HARVARD,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:94-CR-52-1 -------------------- June 30, 2000 Before JOLLY, JONES and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jack Harvard appeals from the district court’s denial of

his motion for the correction of his presentence report (PSR)

pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(c). He argues that the district

court erred in placing the burden of proof on him to show that

matters in the PSR were inaccurate or irrelevant, in denying him

the right to call as a witness the probation officer responsible

for preparing the PSR, and in finding that the contested

allegations in the PSR were correct and thus properly included.

Even though the Government does not challenge this appeal

on jurisdictional grounds, this court must always be sure of its

appellate jurisdiction, and when there is doubt, the court must

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. No. 99-50878 -2-

address it, sua sponte if necessary. United States v. Key, 205

F.3d 773, 774 (5th Cir. 2000). In United States v. Engs, 884 F.2d

894 (5th Cir. 1989), we concluded that complaints regarding the

contents of a PSR must be raised prior to the imposition of

sentence and, thus, that a district court does not have

jurisdiction to consider a postsentencing “Rule 32" motion to

correct the PSR. Id. at 897. In light of Engs, the district court

was without jurisdiction to entertain Harvard’s Rule 32 motion.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is VACATED, and the

appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. See e.g., Key, 205

F.3d at 775.

JUDGMENT VACATED; APPEAL DISMISSED.