UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 01-10091
Summary Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WILLIE LEON WASHINGTON,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(5:94-CR-31-2-C)
____________________________________________________________
June 4, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Willie Leon Washington appeals the district court’s revocation
of his supervised release. Washington was represented by appointed
counsel (Federal Public Defender).
First, Washington maintains the court: should have required
the Government to present independent evidence against him; and
should have provided reasons for its judgment. Washington waived
these rights by pleading true to the charges in the revocation
motion. See Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489 (1972); United
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
States v. Ayers, 946 F.2d 1127, 1129-30 (5th Cir. 1991); United
States v. Holland, 850 F.2d 1048, 1050-51 (5th Cir. 1988).
Second, Washington also contends, for the first time on
appeal, that the court should have ascertained on the record that
this plea was knowing and voluntary. He asserts that, even though
a revocation hearing is involved, such court-action is required
under Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969). Because Washington
did not object to the court’s failure to do so, review is only for
plain error. E.g., United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64
(5th Cir. 1994)(en banc), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1196 (1995).
Washington does not even satisfy the first step for plain error
review; he has failed to show “clear” or “obvious” error arising
out of not being provided Boykin protections at the hearing.
AFFIRMED
2