IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-41492
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DAVID ESCAMILLA-DAVILA,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. B-98-CR-477-1
--------------------
August 26, 1999
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
David Escamilla-Davila (“Escamilla”) challenges his guilty-
plea conviction for illegal reentry of a deported alien, in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Escamilla contends that the
district court erred by failing to comply with Fed. R. Crim. P.
11(c)(1) during rearraignment and that his conviction must
therefore be reversed.
In reviewing whether the district court complied with the
dictates of Rule 11, this court “conduct[s] a straightforward,
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 98-41492
-2-
two-question `harmless error’ analysis: (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); see Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(h). Although Escamilla
acknowledges that Rule 11 violations are subject to harmless-
error review, he makes no argument that his substantial rights
were affected by the district court’s alleged violation of Rule
11(c)(1). Accordingly, there is no reversible error, see
Johnson, 1 F.3d at 298, and Escamilla’s appeal is frivolous.
Furthermore, while Escamilla’s argument that the district
court failed to explain the charge to him is not frivolous, it is
meritless. As the charge in this case was simple, a reading of
the indictment, followed by an opportunity given to the defendant
to ask questions about it, was sufficient. United States v.
Dayton, 604 F.2d 931, 937 (5th Cir. 1979) (en banc).
Because Escamilla’s appeal is without merit and is
frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. The Government's
motion to consolidate this case is DENIED.
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION DENIED.