IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-41547
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
FRANK GUILLORY,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:97-CR-23-1
- - - - - - - - - -
September 17, 1998
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Frank Guillory appeals the denial of his motion for specific
performance of his plea agreement with the State of Texas. He
was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon, an incident arising out of the same
events as his state prosecution for attempted capital murder and
hindering apprehension. He argues that the federal government is
acting as the alter ego of the state government in 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 97-41547
-2-
prosecution and that as a result the indictment should be
dismissed.
On appeal from the denial of a motion for specific
performance of a plea agreement, this court reviews the district
court’s factual findings under a “clearly erroneous” standard.
United States v. Williams, 809 F.2d 1072, 1079, modified on other
grounds, 828 F.2d 1 (5th Cir. 1987). The trial court made
several findings of fact to support its denial. The federal
prosecutors decided to pursue the case against the defendant for
a distinct offense. This decision was based primarily upon
contact with the victim. No federal agent participated in the
state plea negotiations. The parties to the state plea agreement
had agreed that all state prosecutions would be dismissed, but
they admitted that they did not consider or discuss federal
prosecutions. The defendant was not assured that he would not be
prosecuted under the federal law.
Upon a review of the record, the briefs, and the applicable
law, we hold that the factual findings of the trial court are not
clearly erroneous and that the denial of the motion for specific
performance of the plea agreement was not error. The judgment of
the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.