IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-40268
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CARLOS SAUCEDA-SANCHEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. B-95-279-01
- - - - - - - - - -
December 6, 1996
Before JONES, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Carlos Sauceda-Sanchez appeals his conviction and sentence
for illegal reentry following deportation in violation of U.S.C.
§§ 1326(a) & (b)(2). Sauceda-Sanchez contends that the district
court violated Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c) in its determination
whether Sauceda-Sanchez’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary
because the court (1) did not inform him of the nature of the
charge against him or establish a factual basis to support the
guilty plea, (2) did not inform him of his right to not have his
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
No. 96-40268
- 2 -
silence used against him, (3) did not inform him of the effect of
supervised release with respect to the charged offense and
erroneously told him the the statutory maximum was five years
instead of three years, (4) did not inform him that he could not
withdraw his guilty plea if the court did not accept the plea,
and (5) erroneously told him that he was waiving his right to
appeal by pleading guilty. Sauceda-Sanchez contends that the
alleged violations of Rule 11 affected his substantial rights and
requires the reversal of his conviction.
We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties
and conclude that any violation of Rule 11 committed by the
district court was harmless. See United States v. Johnson, 1
F.3d 296, 298 (5th Cir. 1993)(en banc). Sauceda-Sanchez was
clearly advised of the nature of the charges against him and the
district court established a factual basis for the guilty plea.
The record does not affirmatively show that any variance from
Rule 11(c) requirements committed by the district court affected
Sauceda-Sanchez’s decision to plead guilty. See id. at 301-303.
AFFIRMED.