United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT July 24, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-11140
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ALFREDO RIOS RIVERA,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:04-CR-3-1-C
--------------------
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Alfredo Rios Rivera, appearing pro se, appeals his guilty-
plea conviction and sentence. Finding no error, we affirm.
Rivera challenges the voluntariness of his guilty plea on
several grounds. As Rivera did not raise a voluntariness
challenge in the district court, we review for plain error. See
United States v. Brown, 328 F.3d 787, 789 (5th Cir. 2003). The
district court informed Rivera of the nature of the charges
against him, the minimum and maximum penalties he faced, and his
constitutional rights, and otherwise substantially complied with
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-11140
-2-
FED. R. CRIM. P. 11. Thus, we reject Rivera’s conclusory
assertion that the plea colloquy was inadequate.
Rivera also contends that he was not competent to enter the
plea because of his mental condition and due to medications that
he was taking. At the guilty-plea hearing, Rivera replied in the
negative when asked if he had ever been treated for mental
illness and whether he was under the influence of any
medications. His statements under oath are entitled to a strong
presumption that they are true. See Blackledge v. Allison, 431
U.S. 63, 74 (1977). We decline to consider the documents or
medical evidence on which Rivera relies, as there is no
indication that they were before the district court at the time
of the guilty plea. See United States v. Flores, 887 F.2d 543,
546 (5th Cir. 1989). The district court did not plainly err in
concluding that Rivera was competent.
Rivera also asserts that his plea was involuntary because he
was not aware that a certain piece of real property located on
Old Lamesa Road (the Lamesa Road Property) was subject to
forfeiture. This assertion is contrary to the written plea
agreement in which Rivera expressly agreed to the forfeiture of
that property. Rivera told the court that he had read,
understood, and agreed with the terms and conditions of the
agreement. Rivera’s contention is without merit.
Rivera also argues that his plea was involuntary due to various
instances of ineffective assistance of counsel. The record is
No. 04-11140
-3-
insufficiently developed for us to consider these claims.
Accordingly, we decline to consider them. See United States v.
Lampazianie, 251 F.3d 519, 523 (5th Cir. 2001).
Rivera next argues that the district court’s finding of drug
quantity violates the rule set out in United States v. Booker,
543 U.S. 220 (2005). As the Government correctly asserts, Rivera
waived his right to appeal his sentence except in the case of a
sentence that exceeds the statutory maximum, an upward departure,
or an arithmetic error. None of those claims implicates Booker.
Therefore, Rivera waived his right to challenge his sentence
under Booker. See United States v. Burns, 433 F.3d 442, 443,
445-46 (5th Cir. 2005).
We reject Rivera’s contention that he was unaware of the
appeal waiver and did not enter into it knowingly and
voluntarily. The waiver was plainly set forth in the plea
agreement and was explained to Rivera at the time he pleaded
guilty. Thus, we hold Rivera to his agreement. See United
States v. Portillo, 18 F.3d 290, 292-93 (5th Cir. 1994).
Rivera’s contention that the district court informed him he could
appeal at the time of sentencing is unavailing, as the court
merely stated that he could appeal as set forth in the plea
agreement. We also reject his argument that the Government
waived reliance on the waiver, given that the Government invoked
the waiver in response to Rivera’s appeal brief.
No. 04-11140
-4-
Finally, Rivera challenges the forfeiture of the Lamesa Road
Property. Rivera’s challenge to the forfeiture is foreclosed by
his waiver of his right to appeal his sentence, see Libretti v.
United States, 516 U.S. 29, 38-39 (1995) (forfeiture is an
element of the sentence), and by his concession in the plea
agreement that the property was subject to forfeiture.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district
court is AFFIRMED.