IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-50001
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
OCTAVIO LOZOYA, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. P-00-CR-283-1-F
--------------------
October 26, 2001
Before JONES, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Octavio Lozoya, Jr., appeals his guilty-plea conviction for
harboring an alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324. Lozoya
argues that at his plea hearing the magistrate judge improperly
advised him with regard to his appeal rights and with regard to
the effect of the imposition of a term of supervised release in
violation of FED. R. CRIM. P. 11.
The magistrate judge’s statement with regard to Lozoya’s
appeal rights, while incorrect, cannot reasonably be viewed as
having been a material factor affecting Lozoya’s decision to
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-50001
-2-
plead guilty. See United States v. Johnson, 1 F.3d 296, 302 (5th
Cir. 1993)(en banc). Lozoya is correct that the magistrate judge
failed to explain that upon revocation of supervised release
Lozoya could serve an additional 24 months in prison. See 8
U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(B)(ii); 18 U.S.C. §§ 3559(a)(4), 3583(b)(2),
(e)(3). However, because Lozoya does not allege that his plea
would have been different but for the Rule 11 error and he
identifies no rational basis upon which to conclude that his plea
would have been different but for the Rule 11 error, affirmance
of the district court’s acceptance of the guilty plea is
appropriate. See United States v. Vasquez-Bernal, 197 F.3d 169,
171 (5th Cir. 1999). We therefore AFFIRM the district court’s
judgment.