United States v. Washington ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    ____________________
    No. 01-10091
    Summary Calendar
    ____________________
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    WILLIE LEON WASHINGTON,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ____________________________________________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    (5:94-CR-31-2-C)
    ____________________________________________________________
    June 4, 2001
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Willie Leon Washington appeals the district court’s revocation
    of his supervised release. Washington was represented by appointed
    counsel (Federal Public Defender).
    First, Washington maintains the court:     should have required
    the Government to present independent evidence against him; and
    should have provided reasons for its judgment.     Washington waived
    these rights by pleading true to the charges in the revocation
    motion.   See Morrissey v. Brewer, 
    408 U.S. 471
    , 489 (1972); United
    *
    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    this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
    States v. Ayers, 
    946 F.2d 1127
    , 1129-30 (5th Cir. 1991); United
    States v. Holland, 
    850 F.2d 1048
    , 1050-51 (5th Cir. 1988).
    Second, Washington also contends, for the first time on
    appeal, that the court should have ascertained on the record that
    this plea was knowing and voluntary.   He asserts that, even though
    a revocation hearing is involved, such court-action is required
    under Boykin v. Alabama, 
    395 U.S. 238
     (1969).   Because Washington
    did not object to the court’s failure to do so, review is only for
    plain error. E.g., United States v. Calverley, 
    37 F.3d 160
    , 162-64
    (5th Cir. 1994)(en banc), cert. denied, 
    513 U.S. 1196
     (1995).
    Washington does not even satisfy the first step for plain error
    review; he has failed to show “clear” or “obvious” error arising
    out of not being provided Boykin protections at the hearing.
    AFFIRMED
    2