Opinion ID: 606237
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reliance on Information in Presentence Report

Text: 14 Langerston's final claim is that the district court violated Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(c)(3)(D) by failing to make written findings about controverted information in the presentence report. 4 Langerston made this argument in his August 14, 1991 Rule 32 motion. Finding no meritorious arguments in the petition, the district court denied his motion on September 9, 1991. Langerston did not appeal. Once again, we have no jurisdiction over Langerston's claim. Langerston's Rule 32 motion was not filed until seventeen months after the filing of his original notice of appeal. The denial of the Rule 32 motion was not encompassed by the March 5, 1990 notice of appeal, nor has Langerston made any effort to appeal the order itself. 15 Moreover, the district court had no jurisdiction to entertain the Rule 32 motion. [O]nce the district court has imposed sentence, the court lacks jurisdiction under Rule 32 to hear challenges to a presentence report. United States v. Catabran, 884 F.2d 1288, 1289 (9th Cir.1989). Langerston did not object to the factual information in the presentence report prior to sentencing. His attempt to do so more than three and a half years later simply is not timely. 16 Because we are without jurisdiction, Langerston's appeal must be dismissed. 17 DISMISSED.