Case ID: f-appx_56/html/0299-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Opera MOORE, Appellant.
    No. 02-3357.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 13, 2003.
    Decided Feb. 27, 2003.
    Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Opera Moore appeals the district court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of his motion requesting correction of his presentence report (PSR). We affirm.

The district court clerk’s office received a letter from Moore stating that errors in his PSR prevented him from participating in programs within the Bureau of Prisons. The district court construed the letter as a motion to correct the PSR under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32, and denied the motion, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to correct a PSR after sentencing. We agree with the district court that it lacked jurisdiction. See United States v. Angiulo, 57 F.3d 38, 41 (1st Cir.1995) (Rule 32, in and of itself, does not confer jurisdiction on district court to conduct postsentence review).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We deny Moore’s request for reimbursement of his filing fee, as the record does not reflect that he paid the fee.

A true copy. 
      
      . The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.