United States v. Vasquez-Rodriguez ( 2005 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 21, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-50643
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
PATRICIA VASQUEZ-RODRIGUEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 2:03-CR-674-1-WWS
--------------------
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Patricia Vasquez-Rodriguez (Vasquez-Rodriguez), federal
prisoner # 38479-180, appeals her guilty-plea conviction and
sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
cocaine, conspiracy to import cocaine, possession with intent to
distribute cocaine, and importation of cocaine. On each count,
Vasquez-Rodriguez was sentenced to 78 months of imprisonment and
five years of supervised release.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-50643
-2-
Vasquez-Rodriguez’s arguments that the district court failed
to comply with FED. R. CRIM. P. 11 are reviewed for plain error.
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-37 (1993). Vasquez-
Rodriguez contends that the district court erred in failing to
fully advise her of the court’s obligation to apply the
sentencing guidelines and its “discretion to depart from those
guidelines under some circumstances.” While the district court
may not have expressly stated that it may depart from the
sentencing guidelines, see FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(b)(1)(M), Vasquez-
Rodriguez has failed to show that the district court’s failure to
explicitly state this information affected her substantial
rights. See Olano, 507 U.S. at 732-37; see also United States v.
Cuevas-Andrade, 232 F.3d 440, 444-45 (5th Cir. 2000).
Vasquez-Rodriguez asserts that the district court erred in
failing to inform her of the effect of supervised release. In
compliance with FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(b)(1)(H), Vasquez-Rodriguez
was informed that, if she was convicted of each of the charges
against her, she would face “a minimum mandatory of ten years to
life without parole, a fine up to $4 million, five years term of
supervised release and $100 special assessment.”
Vasquez-Rodriguez also asserts that the district court erred
in failing to inform her of or determine that she understood “any
maximum possible penalty, including imprisonment, fine, and term
of supervised release” and “any mandatory minimum penalty.” The
rearraignment transcript reflects that the district court
No. 04-50643
-3-
complied with FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(b)(1)(H) and informed Vasquez-
Rodriguez of and made sure she understood the charges and
penalties pending against her.
Vasquez-Rodriguez further contends that the district court
erred in failing to inform her that false statements provided at
a plea hearing would subject her to prosecution of perjury.
While the district court erred in not informing Vasquez-Rodriguez
of the possibility of being charged with perjury if she was
untruthful during the rearraignment hearing, see FED. R. CRIM. P.
11(b)(1)(A), Vasquez-Rodriguez has not shown that the court’s
failure to convey this information affected her substantial
rights. See Olano, 507 U.S. at 732-37.
As a result of the foregoing, the judgment of the district
court is AFFIRMED.