United States v. Cotton , 111 F. App'x 314 ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 20, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-21024
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
KELVIN DANDREA COTTON,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:02-CR-741-1
--------------------
Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Kelvin Dandrea Cotton was convicted of aiding and abetting
the possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of
crack cocaine. He was sentenced as a career offender to 360
months’ imprisonment. On appeal, he argues that the district
court failed to comply with FED. R. CRIM. P. 32(i)(3)(B) by
failing to rule on his objection to the use of two prior
convictions to enhance his sentence as a career offender.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 03-21024
-2-
As an initial matter, we GRANT the Government’s motion to
unseal the district court’s Statement of Reasons and to take
judicial notice of its contents.
The district court’s compliance with Rule 32 is a question
of law subject to de novo review. United States v. Medina,
161 F.3d 867, 874 (5th Cir. 1998). Rule 32(i)(3)(B) requires a
district court to either “rule on the dispute or determine that a
ruling is unnecessary either because the matter will not affect
sentencing, or because the court will not consider the matter in
sentencing.” A defendant generally is provided adequate notice
of the district court’s resolution of disputed facts when the
court adopts the findings of the presentence report. United
States v. Mora, 994 F.2d 1129, 1141 (5th Cir. 1993).
The district court’s statements at the sentencing hearing
indicate that the district court was overruling Cotton’s
objection and relying on the PSR’s recommendation. Furthermore,
the district court specifically adopted the PSR’s factual
findings and guideline application in its written Statement of
Reasons. Therefore, we conclude that the district court
satisfied the requirements of Rule 32. See Mora, 994 F.2d at
1141.
AFFIRMED.