Opinion ID: 662199
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Correction of Factual Matters in Presentence Report

Text: 20 Chavez contends that the district court should have resentenced him, instead of correcting the PSR. If the court had failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 32(c)(3)(D), the remedy would have been resentencing. See United States v. Fernandez-Angulo, 897 F.2d 1514, 1516-17 (9th Cir.1990) (en banc). In this case, the district court followed Rule 32. It made a finding that the factual matters which Chavez disputed were as Chavez alleged and ordered that the PSR be corrected. See United States v. Macias-Perez, 915 F.2d 570, 571 (9th Cir.1990). 21 When the district court complies with the substantive requirements of Rule 32, but fails to append the appropriate findings to the PSR, such a technical violation of the Rule is a ministerial error which does not require resentencing. Fernandez-Angulo, 897 F.2d at 1517. Instead, the appropriate remedy is to order that the findings be appended to the PSR. Id.; Doganiere v. United States, 914 F.2d 165, 169 (9th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 940, 111 S.Ct. 1398, 113 L.Ed.2d 454 (1991). That is what the district court did in this case. 22 AFFIRMED.