Filed: Jul. 09, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 95-20494 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DOMINGO GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-94-CR-120-2 - - - - - - - - - - June 25, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Domingo Garcia’s sole issue for appeal is whether the district court committed rever
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 95-20494 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DOMINGO GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-94-CR-120-2 - - - - - - - - - - June 25, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Domingo Garcia’s sole issue for appeal is whether the district court committed revers..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-20494
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DOMINGO GARCIA,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-94-CR-120-2
- - - - - - - - - -
June 25, 1996
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Domingo Garcia’s sole issue for appeal is whether the
district court committed reversible error by failing to advise
him at the time of his guilty plea of the meaning and effect of
supervised release. This court employs a two-part analysis in
determining whether the district court has complied with Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11: “(1) [d]id the sentencing court in fact vary from
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
No. 95-20494
- 2 -
the procedures required by Rule 11, and (2) if so, did such
variance affect substantial rights of the defendant?”
United States v. Johnson,
1 F.3d 296, 298 (5th Cir. 1993) (en
banc).
Garcia does not assert that the failure to explain the
effect of supervised release in open court would have altered his
decision to plead guilty in any way. There is no indication in
the record that the district court’s failure to explain the
effect of supervised release had any effect upon the outcome of
the plea process.
AFFIRMED.