Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Maurice Andre PERRY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-05
Citations: 359 F. App'x 510
Docket Number: No. 08-40775
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee v. Maurice Andre PERRY, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 359
Pages: 510–510

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee v. Maurice Andre PERRY, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-40775
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 5, 2010.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Maurice Andre Perry appeals the district court's limited grant of his motion for a sentence reduction. See 18 U.S.C. § 8582(c)(2). Perry contends that the district court erred by failing to afford him the opportunity to review and comment on the addendum to the presentence report (PSR) that was prepared in connection with his motion.
The Government does not dispute that Perry was entitled to an opportunity to review and comment on the PSR prior to the district court's ruling. See United States v. Mueller, 168 F.3d 186, 189 (5th Cir.1999). We conclude that on this record, we cannot determine whether the district court considered the merits of the arguments raised in Perry's untimely motion for reconsideration, nor can we conclude that any error was harmless. See id., United States v. Andrews, 390 F.3d 840, 846 & n. 9 (5th Cir.2004). Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the district court and remand to permit the district court to consider the arguments asserted by Perry in his motion for reconsideration. We express no opinion on the disposition of Perry's motion on remand.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.