IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-41232
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
OCTAVIO ESTRADA-VALDEZ, also known as
Jacinto Estrada-Valdez,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. B-97-CR-194-1
- - - - - - - - - -
October 21, 1998
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Octavio Estrada-Valdez, proceeding pro se, appeals his
guilty-plea conviction for reentering the United States without
the consent of the Attorney General after having been previously
arrested and deported. He argues 1) that his guilty-plea was
involuntary because his attorney and the prosecutor promised him
prior to pleading guilty that his sentence would be less than
what he actually received and 2) that he was denied due process
by not being given sufficient time to review the addendum to the
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 97-41232
-2-
PSR and object to the recommendation therein.
Estrada-Valdez’s contention that the Government promised him
a particular sentence is not supported by the record.
Furthermore, Estrada-Valdez was informed of the maximum sentence
he could receive, and his argument is without merit. See United
States v. Gracia, 983 F.2d 625, 629 (5th Cir. 1993)(erroneous
prediction by prosecutor and defense attorney of defendant’s
sentence not grounds for vacating a guilty-plea when defendant
was informed of the maximum sentence he could receive).
Both Estrada-Valdez and his attorney stated at the
sentencing hearing that they had reviewed the presentence report
addendum, and neither indicated that more time was needed to
challenge the recommendation contained therein. Estrada-Valdez’s
argument that he was denied due process by not having sufficient
time to review and object to the addendum is without merit.
United States v. Johnston, 127 F.3d 380, 403 (5th Cir. 1997).
His motion for this court to accept his pro se brief and excerpts
in the form presented is GRANTED. His motion for an enlargement
of time to file a reply brief is DENIED. His conviction and
sentence are AFFIRMED.