CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL, Circuit Judge:
Robert Salas (Salas) was found guilty after a jury trial of violating 21 U.S.C. § 846, conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance, as charged in Count One of the indictment, and 21 U.S.C. § 843(b), use of a communication facility to commit a drug-related felony, as charged in Count Three of the indictment.
At the time of sentencing, Salas, after reviewing the Probation Department's Presentence Investigation Report and the government's Sentencing Memorandum, was given an opportunity to make a statement. Salas contested the dollar amount of the heroin seized as contained in the Presentence Investigation Report, claiming that it was an excessive amount and would be considered in the Parole Commission's determinations. Salas also contested several points contained in the government's Sentencing Memorandum concerning his prior history and his alleged associations with members of the Mexican Mafia.
After Salas presented his objections to the Presentence Investigation Report and the Sentencing Memorandum, the court sentenced him, stating that there was "nothing of a material nature ... that is inaccurate or incorrect except as to the dollar value" of the heroin. The court subsequently ordered the Probation Department to correct the Presentence Investigation Report prior to sending it to the Parole Commission and the Bureau of Prisons. The court did not make any written findings with respect to Salas' challenges to the government's Sentencing Memorandum.
On December 12, 1985, Salas filed a motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 35 (Rule 35).
Sentencing is left to the sound discretion of the district court. United States v. Messer, 785 F.2d 832, 834 (9th Cir.1986). Sentencing that is within statutory limits is generally not reviewable unless constitutional concerns exist. United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 447, 92 S.Ct. 589, 591, 30 L.Ed.2d 592 (1972). However, whether a sentence imposed is illegal is a question of law reviewed de novo. United States v. Fowler, 794 F.2d 1446, 1449 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 107 S.Ct. 1309, 94 L.Ed.2d 153 (1987).
Salas contends that the district court failed to comply with the requirements of Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(c) (Rule 32(c)) at his sentencing hearing.
By its own terms Rule 32(c) applies only to the Probation Department's Presentence Investigation Report and not to the government's Sentencing Memorandum. However, where the Sentencing Memorandum is incorporated into the Presentence Investigation Report or copied therein, compliance with Rule 32(c) is required. United States v. Sharon, 812 F.2d 1233, 1234 (9th Cir.1987).
Since the record on this appeal does not indicate whether the Sentencing Memorandum was incorporated into the Presentence Investigation Report or copied therein, a remand would ordinarily be required. Id. Under the circumstances of this case, however, a remand is unnecessary. Even if the Sentencing Memorandum was incorporated into the Presentence Investigation Report, we find that the district court has complied with the requirements of Rule 32. Although the district court failed to fulfill the requirements of Rule 32 at the original sentencing hearing, it corrected its own error at the Rule 35 hearing. The court made the following statement at the Rule 35 hearing:
It went on to state that "the information in the Sentencing Memorandum was not of significance to me in terms of the sentence itself that was actually imposed." The court subsequently ordered the Bureau of Prisons and the Parole Commission to attach the transcript of these statements to the Presentence Investigation Report and to incorporate the transcript therein.
The district court has complied with the requirements of Rule 32(c). It made explicit statements that it did not rely on contested matters in the Sentencing Memorandum and ordered that a copy of the transcript thereof be attached to the Presentence Investigation Report. See United States v. Petitto, 767 F.2d 607, 610 (9th Cir.1985).
Similarly, we reject Salas' argument that an evidentiary hearing was required on the contested matters pursuant to Rule 32(c)(3)(A). As noted above, the district court explicitly stated that it did not rely on the contested matters. An evidentiary hearing is not required under these circumstances. Petitto, 767 F.2d at 611.
Salas also contends that the consecutive sentence ordered by the district court is illegal under 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a).
(a) The court may correct an illegal sentence at any time and may correct a sentence imposed in an illegal manner within the time provided herein for the reduction of sentence.
(b) A motion to reduce a sentence may be made ... within 120 days after receipt by the court of a mandate issued upon affirmance of the judgment....
Salas' motion for reduction of sentence was timely because it was filed within 120 days after the Ninth Circuit's mandate was received by the district court on October 16, 1985.
Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(c)(3)(D) provides: