United States v. Martinez ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 00-10528
    Conference Calendar
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    JUAN MARTINEZ, JR.,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    USDC No. 1:00-CR-14-1
    --------------------
    December 13, 2000
    Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Juan Martinez, Jr., appeals the district court’s revocation
    of his supervised release.   He asserts that the district court
    should have required the Government to present independent
    evidence against him and that the court should have provided
    reasons for its judgment.    These are rights which were waived by
    Martinez’s plea of true to the charges against him.    See
    Morrissey v. Brewer, 
    408 U.S. 471
    , 489 (1972); United States v.
    Holland, 
    850 F.2d 1048
    , 1050-51 (5th Cir. 1988); United States v.
    Ayers, 
    946 F.2d 1127
    , 1129-30 (5th Cir. 1991).   Martinez also
    *
    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    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-10528
    -2-
    contends that the district court should have ascertained on the
    record that his plea was knowing and voluntary as is required
    under Boykin v. Alabama, 
    395 U.S. 238
    (1969).    Because Martinez
    did not object to the district court’s failure to do so at the
    revocation hearing, review is for plain error.    United States v.
    Calverley, 
    37 F.3d 160
    , 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994)(en banc).
    Martinez has failed to show plain error arising out of the
    district court’s failure to provide him the protections of Boykin
    at his supervised-release-revocation hearing.    Consequently, the
    district court’s decision is AFFIRMED.