UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________________
No. 97-41531
Summary Calendar
_______________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
EDGAR ANTONIO GODINEZ-GARCES,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(B-97-CR-298-ALL)
_________________________________________________________________
March 2, 1999
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.*
EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge:
Edgar Antonio Godinez-Garces appeals his guilty-plea
conviction for being in the United States without permission after
having previously been deported. He argues that his conviction
should be vacated because the transcript of his guilty plea does
not contain specific responses to several of the Fed. R. Crim. P.
11 questions posed by the district court and that this court cannot
conduct a meaningful review of his guilty plea. He contends that
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 error is not harmless because he is being denied his right to
an appeal.
There is no right to appeal from a guilty plea in the
absence of a jurisdictional defect. Barrientos v. United States,
668 F.2d 838, 842 (5th Cir. 1982). Appeal is limited to a review
of Rule 11 errors. Id. at 843.
Rule 11 requires the district court to follow certain
procedures in determining whether a guilty plea is made knowingly
and voluntarily. United States v. Johnson, 1 F.3d 286, 298-300
(5th Cir. 1993) (en banc). Rule 11 ensures that the district court
addresses three core concerns: “(1) whether the guilty plea was
coerced; (2) whether the defendant understands the nature of the
charges; and (3) whether the defendant understands the consequences
of his plea.” Johnson, 1 F.3d at 300.
Although the district court asked many of the Rule 11
questions to the defendants as a group and the record does not
contain individual responses to several of the Rule 11 inquiries,
the transcript of Godinez-Garces’ guilty plea contains questions
specifically directed toward him regarding whether he was coerced,
whether he understood the nature of the charge against him, and
whether he understood the consequences of his plea. Godinez-Garces
answered appropriately. Moreover, his counsel was silent when the
court asked if anyone had objections to its procedure.
Furthermore, Godinez-Garces does not argue that the
district court varied from the required Rule 11 procedures or that
he did not understand any of the rights he was waiving. Godinez-
2
Garces’ argument that he is being denied his right to an appeal is
without merit and is in fact frivolous.
DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.
3