Did the Ninth Circuit's disposition of Petitioner's claim under Rule 32(i)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure conflict with the Sixth Circuit's opinion in United States v. Osborne, 291 F.3d 908, 911 (6th Cir.2002), which held contrarily that the district court's violating that provision by not inquiring whether the defendant had reviewed the Presentence Report with counsel is a structural error, resulting categorically in a remand for resentencing?

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW In United States v. Soltero, 510 F.3d 858, 863-64 (9" Cir. 2007) (per curiam), an opinion that the Ninth Circuit applied here to foreclose Petitioner’s claim under Rule 32(i)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Ninth Circuit — consistent with an approach that four of its sister circuits have adopted — held that a defendant must demonstrate actual prejudice resulting from a district court’s not inquiring whether he had reviewed a Presentence Report with his counsel. Contrarily, however, Soltero noted that the Sixth Circuit has held that a Rule 32(i)(1)(A) violation is a structural error that does not require the defendant to make such a showing. See id. (discussing United States v. Osborne, 291 F.3d 908, 910-11 (6" Cir. 2002). The question presented is as follows: Did the Ninth Circuit’s disposition of Petitioner’s claim under Rule 32(i)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure conflict with the Sixth Circuit’s opinion in United States v. Osborne, 291 F.3d 908, 911 (6" Cir.2002), which held contrarily that the district court’s violating that provision by not inquiring whether the defendant had reviewed the Presentence Report with counsel is a structural error, resulting categorically in a remand for resentencing? -prefix