Filed: Aug. 25, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-11444 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus FRANK JIMINEZ, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:88-CR-263-T - - - - - - - - - - August 25, 1999 Before KING, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Frank Jiminez appeals from the revocation of his term of supervised release for vio
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-11444 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus FRANK JIMINEZ, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:88-CR-263-T - - - - - - - - - - August 25, 1999 Before KING, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Frank Jiminez appeals from the revocation of his term of supervised release for viol..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-11444
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
FRANK JIMINEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:88-CR-263-T
- - - - - - - - - -
August 25, 1999
Before KING, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Frank Jiminez appeals from the revocation of his term of
supervised release for violating two supervised-release
conditions. Jiminez argues that his procedural due process
rights were violated because the district court revoked his term
of supervised release based solely on his counsel’s statement
that Jiminez intended to plead true to the allegations against
him, rather than obtaining a personal admission of guilt from
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 98-11444
-2-
Jiminez. Because Jiminez failed to object to this alleged error,
we review this issue for plain error. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b).
Jiminez has failed to show any error at all, let alone that
the alleged error by the district court affected his substantial
rights. He cannot show plain error. See United States v. Olano,
507 U.S. 725, 731-37 (1993). Accordingly, the district court’s
judgment is AFFIRMED.