IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-41353
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ELEUTERO GALLEGOS-MORALES,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. B-97-CR-299-1
- - - - - - - - - -
January 25, 1999
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Eleutero Gallegos-Morales (Gallegos) appeals his conviction
under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a),(b), for being present in the United
States, without permission, following deportation. Gallegos
contends that the record of his rearraignment does not allow
meaningful appellate review. He contends that we cannot evaluate
his responses to the questions posed by the district court and
cannot determine whether he understood the rights that he was
waiving. Gallegos urges reversal of his conviction.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 97-41353
-2-
A guilty plea involves the waiver of several constitutional
rights; therefore, it must be intelligent and voluntary. Boykin
v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969). Rule 11, Fed. R. Crim. P.,
requires the district court to follow certain procedures in
determining whether a defendant’s guilty plea is made knowingly
and voluntarily. We employ a two-part analysis in determining
whether the district court has complied with Rule 11: 1) Did the
sentencing court in fact vary from the procedures required by
Rule 11, and 2) if so, did such variance affect substantial
rights of the defendant? United States v. Johnson, 1 F.3d 296,
298 (5th Cir. 1993)(en banc).
Gallegos does not contend that the district court varied
from the procedures required by Rule 11. He does not contend
that his plea was not voluntary, that he did not understand the
proceedings, or that he did not understand the nature of the
charges or the potential sentence he faced. Gallegos does not
identify a single error on the part of the district court.
Accordingly, Gallegos conviction is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.