No. 98-50007
-1-
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-50007
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
VERSUS
JAVIER DELGADO-GONZALES,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. P-97-CR-29-1
--------------------
March 15, 2000
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Javier Delgado-Gonzales argues that the magistrate judge
failed to comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11
during his rearraignment proceedings because the magistrate judge
did not ascertain that he understood the nature of the charges
against him or that Delgado was not coerced into pleading guilty.
Delgado argues that it was evident from the record that he did not
have a good understanding of the English language. He further
argues that the magistrate judge did not ascertain whether he was
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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. 98-50007
-2-
voluntarily waiving his right to present a defense at trial.**
A review of the record of the rearraignment hearing reflects
that Delgado had a sufficient command of the English language to
understand the nature of the proceedings and the charges to which
he was pleading guilty. The record also reflects that the
magistrate judge ascertained that Delgado was competent to enter a
plea and that Delgado was knowingly and voluntarily pleading guilty
to the conduct charges. Delgado failed to demonstrate that the
magistrate judge varied from the procedures required by Rule 11 or
that his substantial rights were prejudiced during the
rearraignment proceedings. See United States v. Johnson, 1 F.3d
296, 298-301 (5th Cir. 1993) (en banc).
Delgado also argues that the district court erred in denying
his motion to withdraw his plea. The record reflects that Delgado
was provided competent legal representation and that he knowingly
and voluntarily entered his guilty plea. Delgado has not carried
his burden of showing that there was a just and fair reason to
allow him to withdraw his guilty plea. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(e);
United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339, 343-44 (5th Cir. 1984). The
district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion
to withdraw the guilty plea. See United States v. Grant, 117 F.3d
788, 789 (5th Cir. 1997).
AFFIRMED.
**
Delgado’s purported defense of false arrest is not a defense at
all. An illegal arrest, without more, does not implicate the
validity of a subsequent conviction. United States v. Crews, 445
U.S. 463, 474 (1980); United States v. Zabaneh, 837 F.2d 1249, 1261
(5th Cir. 1988).