Opinion ID: 3011669
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: We are asked to determine whether the appellant, Michael Anthony Adams, is entitled to resentencing because the District Court failed to observe the r equirement of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(c)(3)(C), which mandates that the District Court personally addr ess the defendant before imposing sentence and deter mine whether he wishes to make a statement or present any information in mitigation of the sentence. We conclude that Adams should be resentenced, and accordingly will vacate the judgment of the District Court and remand for resentencing. We note that Adams also seeks resentencing on the basis of the District Court's alleged failure to verify that Adams and his defense counsel had read and discussed the presentence report, as requir ed under subsection (A) of the same Rule. However, the resentencing r emedy which we afford Adams based upon subsection (C) obviates the need to decide that issue. Also, we will not reach the third issue raised on appeal, namely, whether the District Court properly refused to grant a downwar d departure from the Sentencing Guidelines range, because we lack jurisdiction over this issue.1 _________________________________________________________________ 1. Adams contends that the District Court misappr ehended its authority to depart from the Guidelines range based upon substandard presentence confinement conditions. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that the District Court did understand its authority but declined to exercise its discretion to depart downward, and thus we do not have jurisdiction to review this aspect of Adams' sentence. E.g., United States v. Stevens, 223 F.3d 239, 247 (3d Cir. 2000). 2