United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 19, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-31199
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GUY LADDIE COCKRELL,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 01-CR-20122-1
--------------------
Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Guy Laddie Cockrell challenges his conviction and the
sentence he received after he pleaded guilty to possession of
crack cocaine with intent to distribute and to carrying a firearm
during and in relation to a drug-trafficking crime. Cockrell
argues, for the first time on appeal, that the district court
erred when it did not hold a hearing on his lawyer’s motion to
withdraw. Because Cockrell did not argue in the district court
that he was entitled to a hearing, this issue is reviewed for
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-31199
-2-
plain error. United States v. Iwegbu, 6 F.3d 272, 274-75
(5th Cir. 1993). In light of Cockrell’s statement to the court
that he was satisfied with counsel’s representation, the district
court did not err by not conducting a hearing.
Cockrell also argues for the first time on appeal that the
Government was required to file a motion for a downward departure
pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1. The Government’s failure to file
a U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 motion was not plain error because, under
the terms of the plea agreement, the Government agreed merely
to advise the court of Cockrell’s assistance. Wade v. United
States, 504 U.S. 191, 184 (1992); United States v. Garcia-
Bonilla, 11 F.3d 45, 46 (5th Cir. 1993). The record reflects
that the Government told the court about Cockrell’s cooperation.
AFFIRMED.