IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Summary Calendar No. 99-51113 USDC No. DR-99-CR-386-ALL

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JAVIER DAVID REYES-AGUILAR, Defendant-Appellant;

____________________ Consolidated with No. 99-51140 USDC No. DR-99-CR-314-ALL

_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus FERNANDO RINCON-VILLARREAL, Defendant- Appellant;

____________________ Consolidated with No. 00-50093 USDC No. EP-99-CR-1289-ALL

_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versusNo. 99-51113 c/w Nos. 99-51140 & 00-50093 & 00-50137 & 00-50138 & 00-50081

-2-

LORENZO ALONZO-GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant;

____________________ Consolidated with No. 00-50137 USDC No. EP-99-CR-1193-ALL

_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus PEDRO FLORES-LOPEZ, also known

as Pedro Lopez, Defendant-Appellant;

____________________ Consolidated with No. 00-50138 USDC No. EP-99-CR-1193-ALL-DB

_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ARMANDO HERNANDEZ-RAMOS, Defendant-Appellant;

____________________ Consolidated with No. 00-50081 USDC No. SA-99-CR-358-ALL

_____________________No. 99-51113 c/w Nos. 99-51140 & 00-50093 & 00-50137 & 00-50138 & 00-50081

-3-

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus PEDRO SANTOS-GONZALEZ, also known as ArnulfoRodriguez, also known as Arnulfo RodriguezGonzalez, also known as Pedro Santos, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

- - - - - - - - - - October 18, 2000 Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

In these consolidated appeals, appe l lants argue that the district court violated F ED . R. C RIM . P. 32(c)(3)(A) by failing to verify at sentencing whether the appellants had read their respective presentence reports and discus sed them with counsel. Appellants contend that this failure is not subject to harmlesserror analysis but requires that their sentences be vacated and
remanded for resentencing. They assert that no showing of prejudice is necessary and have not attempted to establish prejudice or argue that they did not review the presentence reports or discuss them with counsel.
The Government argues that the sentencing transcripts show
that all of the parties were familiar with the presentence reportsNo. 99-51113 c/w Nos. 99-51140 & 00-50093 & 00-50137 & 00-50138 & 00-50081

-4-
and that no party had further informatio n regarding the reports
that they wanted to proffer to the district court. The Government asserts, in the alternative, that any Rule 32 error was harmless.
Because appellants did not rai se the issue of noncompliance with Rule 32(c)(3)(A) in the district court, we review this issue only for plain error. S ee United States v. Vasquez , 216 F.3d 456,
458-59 (5th Cir. 2000). Under F E D . R. C RIM . P. 52(b), this court may
correct forfeited errors only when an appellant shows the following factors: (1) there is an error, (2) that is clear or obvious, and (3) that affects his substantial rights. U nited States v. Calverley , 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (citing United States v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 731-37 (1993)). “[I]n most cases the affecting of substantial rights requires that the error
be prejudicial; it must affect the outcome of the proceeding.” Calverley , 37 F.3d at 164.
None of the appellants allege that they did not read the presentence report or discuss it with counsel, nor do they allege prejudice. Therefore, they have not established plain error, and the convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED. Appellants also argue that under Apprendi v New Jersey , 120 S.
Ct. 2348 (2000), the district court should not have imposed a
sentence greater than two years based on prior aggravated felonies
under 8 U.S.C. §1326. However, this court is bound to follow United States v Almendarez-Torres , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), which clearly rejected that argument. S ee Agostini v Felton , 521 U.S.No. 99-51113 c/w Nos. 99-51140 & 00-50093 & 00-50137 & 00-50138 & 00-50081

-5- 203, 237 (1997). Therefore, appellants’ argument is without merit, and the conviction and sentences are AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED.