United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 24, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-40075
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
YOLANDA RODRIGUEZ-MORALES,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:04-CR-1525-1
--------------------
Before REAVLEY, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Yolanda Rodriguez-Morales appeals her guilty-plea conviction
of transporting an undocumented alien within the United States by
means of a motor vehicle for private financial gain, in violation
of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(B)(i). Rodriguez argues that the
district court committed error by failing to comply with portions
of FED. R. CRIM. P. 11 and that there was insufficient evidence to
support her conviction.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-40075
-2-
Where, as here, a defendant fails to object to FED. R. CRIM.
P. 11 error in the district court, this court reviews for plain
error. United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 59 (2002). Rodriguez
argues that the district court erred when it failed to inform her
of the mandatory minimum penalty as required by FED. R. CRIM. P.
11(b)(1)(I). There is no mandatory minimum penalty for the
statute of conviction. See § 1324(a)(1)(B)(i). Rodriguez also
argues that the district court failed to advise her that she
would be sentenced under the Guidelines and that the district
court could depart from the Guidelines. The record reflects that
the district court informed Rodriguez of the Guidelines as
required by FED. R. CRIM. P. 11 (b)(1)(M). Rodriguez has
therefore failed to demonstrate error, plain or otherwise, with
respect to these issues.
Regarding her contention that there was insufficient
evidence to support her conviction, Rodriguez failed to object on
this basis in district court. This court’s review is therefore
limited to plain error. Vonn, 535 U.S. at 59; United States v.
Baymon, 312 F.3d 725, 728 (5th Cir. 2002). The factual basis was
sufficiently specific to allow the district court to determine
that Rodriguez’s conduct was within the ambit of the statute’s
prohibitions. United States v. Gobert, 139 F.3d 436, 439 (5th
Cir. 1998). Rodriguez stated that she understood the factual
basis, that it was true, and that she wished to persist in her
guilty plea. Rodriguez admitted that she knowingly transported
No. 05-40075
-3-
12 aliens by means of a motor vehicle and in furtherance of their
illegal status in the Untied States and for profit. She thus
admitted the elements of the charged offense. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1324(a)(1)(B)(i). Her argument on this issue is without merit.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district
court is AFFIRMED.