United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 30, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-50758
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CANDIDO PEREZ-GUZMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:03-CR-247-6
--------------------
Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Candido Perez-Guzman (Perez) pleaded guilty to count 2 of an
indictment charging him with conspiracy to harbor illegal aliens.
Perez was sentenced to a 49-month term of imprisonment and to a
three-year period of supervised release. Perez contends that his
guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary and that the factual
basis of his guilty plea was not sufficient to establish that he
conspired to harbor illegal aliens. We review this issue for
plain error. See United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 59 (2002).
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-50758
-2-
Perez’s argument is based upon his numerous equivocations
during the rearraignment and, specifically, on the fact that he
denied having personal knowledge of some of the facts recited in
the plea agreement. This argument is without merit. Each time
Perez equivocated, the magistrate judge confirmed again that
Perez was admitting the elements of the offense. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) & (v); United States v. De Jesus-Batres, 410
F.3d 154, 160 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1020, and
cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1021, and cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1022
(2006). At no point does Perez contend that there was a
reasonable probability that he would not have entered the plea
but for error on the part of the district court. See United
States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 83 (2004). Perez has
not shown that the district court plainly erred in accepting his
guilty plea. See Vonn, 535 U.S. at 59.
Perez contends that the district court erred in deviating
from the guideline range because he groped a female victim. The
district court articulated its reasons for its three-month
deviation adequately and the non-guidelines sentence reasonably
reflected the statutory sentencing factors. See United States v.
Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 707–08 (5th Cir. 2006).
AFFIRMED.