United States v. Foy ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 14, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-40451
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOAQUIN FOY, also known as Isa El-Mahde,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. B-97-CR-293-ALL
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Joaquin Foy pleaded guilty to a single-count indictment
charging him with threatening to assault and to murder an
Assistant United States Attorney and a Special Assistant United
States Attorney. Although he did not raise any objections below,
Foy now argues that his plea was involuntary because the district
court participated in the plea negotiations and failed to explain
the charges against him prior to accepting his plea. As these
issues are raised for the first time on appeal they are subject
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-40451
-2-
to the plain error standard of review. United States v. Vasquez,
216 F.3d 456, 459 (5th Cir. 2000); United States v. Vonn, 535
U.S. 55, 59 (2002).
Foy is correct in his assertion that a district court is not
permitted to participate in plea negotiations. United States v.
Jeter, 315 F.3d 445, 449 (5th Cir. 2002); FED. R. CRIM. P.
11(c)(1). The record in this case shows that the district court
did not participate in any discussion of a plea agreement.
United States v. Miles, 10 F.3d 1135, 1140 (5th Cir. 1993)
(internal citation omitted). The record shows that “the district
court was actively evaluating a plea agreement, as the court is
required to do” not “suggesting an appropriate accommodation for
a subsequent plea agreement.” United States v. Crowell, 60 F.3d
199, 204 (5th Cir. 1995).
Foy argues that the district court violated Fed. R. Crim P.
11(b)(1)(G) because the court did not explain the nature of the
charges to which Foy was pleading. The record shows that the
district court complied with the dictates of Rule 11. See United
States v. Stevenson, 126 F.3d 662, 664 (5th Cir. 1997).
AFFIRMED.