IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Summary Calendar No. 00-51091 USDC No. DR-00-229-ALL-FB

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ANGEL GONZALEZ-GALLEGOS,

Defendant - Appellant;

______________________

Consolidated with No. 00-51198 USDC No. DR-00-CR-383-ALL _____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee, versus

MARCELINO CENTENO-HERRERA, Defendant - Appellant;

_____________________

Consolidated with No. 00-51323 USDC No. DR-00-CR-220-1 _____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ALBINO OCHOA-DE LA FUENTE,

Defendant - Appellant; __________________________ ________________

Consolidated with No. 01-50177 USDC No. EP-00-CR-1635-ALL-H __________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee, versus

SERGIO ORDUNA-ALVARADO, also known as Raul Ontiveros,

Defendant - Appellant.

-------------------- Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas -------------------- October 10, 2001

Before JONES, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges:

PER CURIAM:*

Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(3)(A) provides, among other

things, that before imposing sentence in a criminal case, a

district court must “verify that the defendant and defendant’s

counsel have read and discussed” the defendant’s presentence

report. The appellants in these consolidated cases argue that as

to alleged violations of this requirement to which a defendant

failed to object, this court should not review for plain error or

harmless error, but should automatically remand for resentencing.

United Stats v. Esparza-Gonzalez, __ F.3d __,

(5th

Cir. Sep. 26, 2001), rejects their argument and concludes that this

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

2 court reviews for plain error an alleged violation of the

verification requirement to which the defendant failed to object

below.

The appellants did not object in the district court to

the verification requirement violations that they now allege

occurred. As in Esparza-Gonzalez, none of the appellants argues

that he was prejudiced by any such violation or even that he did

not read or discuss with his counsel his presentence report.

Appellants have not demonstrated plain error. See

The appellants’ other arguments are foreclosed by circuit

precedent and, as they acknowledge, are raised only in order to

preserve them for Supreme Court review. The judgments are

AFFIRMED. We commend counsel for their lucidly argued briefs.

3