United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 10, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-10452
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LINDA C. ROLLINS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:00-CR-00022-ALL-Y
--------------------
Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Linda C. Rollins appeals the district court’s judgment
revoking her supervised release and sentencing her to 24 months’
imprisonment. Rollins argues that the district court erred
by not inquiring on the record whether she was knowingly,
intelligently, and voluntarily pleading true to the alleged
supervised release violations. She contends that the protections
afforded to criminal defendants by FED. R. CRIM. P. 11 and
Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969), should extend 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-10452
-2-
supervised release revocation proceedings. Rollins concedes that
this issue is foreclosed by this court’s precedent in United
States v. Johns, 625 F.2d 1175, 1176 (5th Cir. 1980), and she
states that she is raising the issue solely to preserve it for
possible future review.
Rollins did not object to the district court’s noncompliance
with the procedures in FED. R. CRIM. P. 11 and Boykin.
Accordingly, this court’s review is for plain error. See United
States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162–64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en
banc).
In Johns, this court held that FED. R. CRIM. P. 11 is
inapplicable to probation revocation hearings. See Johns,
625 F.2d at 1176. The issue whether the district court should
have complied with FED. R. CRIM. P. 11 at Rollins’ revocation
hearing is foreclosed by Johns. Thus, Rollins fails to
demonstrate that the district court erred by not complying with
FED. R. CRIM. P. 11.
This court has not yet addressed the issue whether
Boykin is applicable to probation revocation hearings. See id.
Given the lack of controlling authority in this circuit on this
issue, any error by the district court with regard to Boykin was
not clear or obvious and, therefore, does not meet the plain-
error standard. See Calverley, 37 F.3d at 163–64.
The Government has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal
or to summarily affirm the judgment without further briefing.
No. 03-10452
-3-
In the alternative, the Government moves for an extension of
time. The motion to dismiss the appeal is DENIED. The motion
for summary affirmance is GRANTED. The motion for an extension
of time is DENIED as moot.
AFFIRMED.