NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. WILLIAM ARTHUR STEHL, AKA William A. Stehl,
Defendant

- Appellant. No. 15

- 50035
D.C. No. 2:12

- cr
- 00995

- TJH

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Terry J. Hatter, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted April 4, 2017 Pasadena, California Before: PLAGER, * * BEA, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Defendant Willia m Arthur Stehl appeals from his conviction entered following a guilty plea a nd from a 144

- month sentence for conspiracy to commit mail fraud (18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 , 1349 ), false statements to federal agents (18 U.S.C.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The Honorable S. Jay Plager, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circ uit, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

APR 12 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 § 1001), tax evasion (26 U.S.C. § 7201), and t ax fraud (26 U.S.C. § 7206 ). As the parties are familiar with the facts , we do not recount them here. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.
1. We reject Stehl’s contention that the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(e)(1) by deferring acceptance of his guilty plea, made
pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford , 400 U.S. 25 (1970) , until after the court reviewed the presentence report (“PSR”)

. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(e)(1) (“U nless the defendant has consented in writing, the probation officer must not submit a presentence report to the court o r disclose its contents to anyone until the defendant has pleaded guilty or nolo contendere, or has been found guilty.” ). D espite the
district court’s comments at the change

- of

- plea hearin g, looking at the entire
record , there is in sufficient evidence tha t the court actually reviewed the PSR before accepting Stehl’s guilty plea. See Gregg v. United States , 394 U.S. 489,
4 93 (1969) (affirming a defendant’s conviction w here “[t]he trial judge did not state that he read the presentence report before the jur y verdict was delivered, nor is there any direct evidence in this record that he did” ). Moreover, Stehl failed to object to the alleged Rule 32 vi olation in the district court. Even if the district court did review the PSR prematurely, Stehl has
not shown that he was prejudiced . As such, there was no plain error. See United
States v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 734 (1993).3 2

. The parties agree that a remand for resentencing is appropriate based on the
district court’s statements that it chose Stehl’s sentence, in part, to provide him
“with needed medical care or other correctional treatment in the most effective
manner.” See Tapia v. United Sta tes , 564 U.S. 319, 321 (2011) (holding that
f

ederal courts are precluded “from imposing or lengthening a prison term in order to promote a crim inal defendant’s rehabilitation ” ). We decline to grant the government’s request for a limited remand, and remand for the district court to resentence Stehl on an open record.
AFFIRM ED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED

.