UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 97-10445
Summary Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GEORGE PAUL SALEMO,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(USDC No. 3:96-CR-393-1-H)
_________________________________________________________________
March 6, 1998
Before WIENER, BARKSDALE and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
George Paul Salemo appeals his conviction for aiding and
abetting and escape from custody. He contends that his guilty plea
is invalid because the district court violated several provisions
of FED. R. CRIM. P. 11 during the colloquy.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
The district court failed to inform Salemo during the plea
colloquy that his maximum sentence includes three years of
supervised release. This omission, however, when added to Salemo’s
sentence of imprisonment of 27 months, resulted in a total sentence
of only three months more than the maximum 60 months stated by the
district court during the colloquy. Moreover, this period of
supervised release is to run concurrently with the period of
supervised release imposed on Salemo for his prior offenses.
Accordingly, the error was harmless. See United States v. Johnson,
1 F.3d 296, 302 (5th Cir. 1993) (en banc) (substantial rights are
affected when “the district court’s flawed compliance with ... Rule
11 ... may reasonably be viewed as having been a material factor
affecting [defendant]’s decision to plead guilty”).
Salemo contends also that his substantial rights were affected
when the district court failed to address individually the rights
enumerated in Rule 11(c)(3). Instead, the court asked Salemo and
his counsel whether they had discussed the rights Salemo would give
up in pleading guilty. Salemo fails to explain how this omission
affected his substantial rights; therefore, it is unnecessary to
address this contention. Id. at 298.
AFFIRMED.
2