United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT September 7, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-11202
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JEREMY JUD HANSEN,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:04-CR-148-ALL
--------------------
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jeremy Jud Hansen appeals from his guilty plea conviction
for two counts of brandishing a firearm during a robbery. He
argues that his guilty plea was not voluntary because the
district court failed to advise him that his federal sentence
would run consecutively to the state sentence he was already
serving.
Hansen acknowledges that his claim may be foreclosed by
United States v. Hernandez, 234 F.3d 252, 256-57 (5th Cir. 2000).
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-11202
-2-
Although Hernandez is not controlling as it involved a different
statute under which the district court had discretion whether to
impose a consecutive sentence, it is nevertheless instructive.
It, along with this court’s prior decisions in United States v.
Saldana and Tindall v. United States, establish that a court is
not required by Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 to inform a defendant of the
interaction between federal and state sentences, as long as it
has advised the defendant of the maximum possible federal
sentence. See Saldana, 505 F.2d 628, 628 (5th Cir. 1974)(per
curiam); Tindall, 469 F.2d 92, 93 (5th Cir. 1972). Hansen’s
argument to the contrary is unavailing.
The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED,
and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.