IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-40053
Conference Calendar
__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MANUEL AGUIRRE-CONTRERAS,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. M-94-201 (CR-M-93-184-2)
- - - - - - - - - -
August 24, 1995
Before KING, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Manuel Aguirre-Contreras appeals the denial of his motion
filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. His arguments that he
received ineffective assistance of counsel, that the Presentence
Report contained erroneous information, and that his base offense
level should not have considered the use of a weapon because he
did not plead guilty to a weapons count, need not be reviewed
because he did not present them to the district court. See
Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991).
*
Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular
cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined
that this opinion should not be published.
No. 95-40053
-2-
As to whether his guilty plea was voluntary, relief under
§ 2255 is reserved for jurisdictional or constitutional issues.
See United States v. Shaid, 937 F.2d 228, 232 (5th Cir. 1991) (en
banc), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1076 (1992). The formal or
technical failure to follow Fed. Rule Crim. P. 11** is not
grounds for relief under § 2255 unless the alleged error
resulted, inter alia, in a "complete miscarriage of justice" or
in a proceeding "inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of
fair procedure." United States v. Timmreck, 441 U.S. 780, 784-
85 (1979).
At his rearraignment, Aguirre-Contreras indicated that he
understood that he faced a minimum sentence of sixty months
imprisonment. Additionally, although "a guilty plea induced by
an unkept bargain is involuntary," and therefore
unconstitutional, United States v. Watson, 988 F.2d 544, 553 (5th
Cir. 1993) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 114 U.S. 698 (1994),
Aguirre-Contreras does not suggest that the Government did not
keep its bargain in recommending the low end of the guidelines.
Consequently, he makes no showing that the requisite miscarriage
of justice occurred which would entitle him to relief under
§ 2255. See Timmreck, 441 U.S. at 784-85.
AFFIRMED.
**
Rule 11 addresses three "core concerns": whether the
guilty plea was coerced; whether the defendant understood the
nature of the charges; and whether the defendant understood the
consequences of his plea. See United States v. Johnson, 1 F.3d
296, 300 (5th Cir. 1993) (en banc) (direct appeal from guilty-
plea conviction).