United States v. Juan Cardenas-Ramirez , 537 F. App'x 587 ( 2013 )

Case: 12-41238 Document: 00512331746 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/05/2013
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
August 5, 2013
No. 12-41238
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
JUAN HUMBERTO CARDENAS-RAMIREZ, also known as Michel Cardenas-
Felix, also known as Felix Luis Cardenas-Ramirez,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:08-CR-406-1
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Juan Humberto Cardenas-Ramirez appeals the district court’s revocation
of his supervised release imposed in connection with his 2008 conviction for
illegal reentry after deportation. Cardenas-Ramirez argues that the district
court plainly erred in failing to ascertain whether his plea of true was knowing
and voluntary and that this error violated his due process rights. Cardenas-
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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.
Case: 12-41238 Document: 00512331746 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/05/2013
No. 12-41238
Ramirez acknowledges that this court has not yet decided whether Boykin v.
Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969), extends to revocation hearings, but he argues
that this court should apply Boykin to revocation proceedings.
As Cardenas-Ramirez concedes, because he did not raise this issue in the
district court, our review is limited to the familiar plain error standard. See
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 134-35 (2009). Although we have not yet
addressed whether Boykin applies to revocation hearings, see United States v.
Johns, 625 F.2d 1175, 1176 (5th Cir. 1980), other circuits have held Boykin
inapplicable to revocation proceedings. See United States v. Pelensky, 129 F.3d
63, 67-68 (2d Cir. 1997); United States v. Rapert, 813 F.2d 182, 184-85 (8th Cir.
1987); United States v. Segal, 549 F.2d 1293, 1296-1301 (9th Cir. 1977). Given
the foregoing, any error by the district court with regard to failing to ascertain
the knowing and voluntary nature of the plea was not clear or obvious, and
therefore, it does not meet the plain error standard. See United States v.
Garcia-Rodriguez, 415 F.3d 452, 455-56 (5th Cir. 2005).
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2