United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 11, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-11137
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LARRY CHARLES GIPSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:04-CR-306-1
--------------------
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Larry Charles Gipson appeals his guilty-plea convictions for
bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). He argues,
for the first time on appeal, that the district court failed to
comply with the requirements of FED. R. CRIM. P. 11 at
rearraignment. The argument is reviewed for plain error. United
States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 59 (2002). To demonstrate plain
error, Gipson must show clear or obvious error that affects his
substantial rights; if he does, this court has discretion 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-11137
-2-
correct a forfeited error that seriously affects the fairness,
integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. United
States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993). This court will find
that a “substantial right” has been violated if “the defendant’s
knowledge and comprehension of the full and correct information
would have been likely to affect his willingness to plead
guilty.” United States v. Johnson, 1 F.3d 296, 298 (5th Cir.
1993) (en banc).
Although Gipson asserts that the Rule 11 errors by the
district court affected his substantial rights, he simultaneously
asks for “a new plea hearing.” Because Gipson states that he
still wishes to plead guilty despite the inadequate Rule 11
colloquy, he has not shown any effect on his substantial rights.
See id.; see also United States v. Vasquez-Bernal, 197 F.3d 169,
171 (5th Cir. 1999). His conviction is therefore AFFIRMED. The
Government’s motion to supplement the record is DENIED, and
Gipson’s cross-motion to seal the psychiatric evaluation is
similarly DENIED.