IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-20634
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ELIBODIO GONZALES,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No.H-90-CR-278-1
--------------------
May 8, 2001
Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Elibodio Gonzales appeals his guilty plea conviction for
conspiracy to export stolen motor vehicles, in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 371 and 2312, and attempting to export a stolen motor
vehicle, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 553. Gonzales argues that
there was no sufficient factual basis to support his guilty plea
on either count and that the district court’s failure to advise
him fully of the effect of any supervised release is reversible
error.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-20634
-2-
Because Gonzales did not object in the district court to the
sufficiency of the factual basis for his guilty plea, this court
reviews for plain error. See United States v. Marek, 238 F.3d
310, 314 (5th Cir. 2001)(en banc). The facts presented by the
Government at the plea hearing support the district court’s
conclusion that the elements of each of the counts had been
demonstrated. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 553, 2312; United States v.
Graves, 669 F.2d 964, 969 (5th Cir. 1982). Because the record
demonstrates that a sufficient factual basis exists, Gonzales has
failed to show any plain error. Id.; Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(f).
With regard to Gonzales’ argument that the district court
failed to advise him fully of the effect of any supervised
release, the record demonstrates that the district court did fail
so to inform Gonzales. However, this error is harmless, because
the district court’s failure in this regard did not affect any
substantial rights of Gonzales. See United States v. Johnson, 1
F.3d 296, 298 (5th Cir. 1993)(en banc); Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(h).
Because the maximum sentence explained by the district court
before Gonzales entered his guilty plea was more than the
sentence actually given to him, an explanation of the supervised
release term would not have been likely to affect Gonzales’
willingness to plead guilty. See Johnson, 1 F.3d at 302; United
States v. Hekimain, 975 F.2d 1098, 1101-03 (5th Cir. 1992). The
judgment of the district court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.