IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-50507
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MANUELA HERNANDEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. A-98-CR-71-2-JN
--------------------
August 23, 2000
Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Manuela Hernandez argues that the district court failed to
comply with several of the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 at
the time that she entered her guilty plea, which rendered her
plea involuntary and the underlying plea agreement void.
Hernandez argues that the district court failed to advise
her of the mandatory minimum penalty that could be imposed if her
offense was found to involve less than 500 grams of cocaine.
This argument is frivolous because there is no mandatory minimum
penalty if a drug offense involves less than 500 grams of
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 99-50507
-2-
cocaine. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C).
Hernandez further argues that the district court failed to
comply with Rule 11 because it erroneously advised her that a
three-year term of supervised release, rather than a four-year
term, could be imposed if the offense involved more than 500
grams but less than five kilograms of cocaine. Hernandez was
sentenced based on the offense involving more than five kilograms
of cocaine and was correctly advised that she could receive a
five-year term of supervised release if that amount of drugs were
attributed to her. A five-year term of supervised release was
imposed at sentencing. Hernandez’s substantial rights were not
affected by misinformation which had no relevancy at the time of
her sentencing. See United States v. Johnson, 1 F.3d 296, 301-03
(5th Cir. 1993) (en banc).
Hernandez argues that the district court further violated
Rule 11 by failing to explain to her the potential effect of
relevant conduct at sentencing. The district court was not
required, prior to accepting the guilty plea, to predict
Hernandez’s possible sentence under the guidelines or to advise
her of the effects of relevant conduct on her sentence. See
United States v. Hoster, 988 F.2d 1374, 1379 (5th Cir. 1993).
The failure to discuss relevant conduct was not a violation of
Rule 11.
Hernandez argues that her trial counsel was ineffective
during plea negotiations, at her rearraignment, and at
sentencing. Hernandez’s claims of ineffective assistance of
counsel were not presented to the district court and cannot be
No. 99-50507
-3-
addressed on direct appeal because the record has not been
adequately developed to consider the claims. See United States
v. Haese, 162 F.3d 359, 363-64 (5th Cir 1998), cert. denied, 526
U.S. 1138 (1999).
AFFIRMED.