United States v. Parra-Luna ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT September 24, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-51354
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GUILLERMO PARRA-LUNA,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. SA-02-CR-497-1
--------------------
Before JONES, BARKSDALE and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Guillermo Parra-Luna appeals his guilty-plea conviction for
conspiracy to transport aliens for profit and illegal
transportation of an alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324.
Parra-Luna argues that the district court failed to comply with
FED. R. CRIM. P. 11 and thus that his guilty plea was unknowing
and involuntary.
Parra-Luna did not challenge the court’s compliance with
FED. R. CRIM. P. 11 in the district court. His argument is
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 03-51354
-2-
therefore reviewed for plain error. United States v. Reyes, 300
F.3d 555, 558 (5th Cir. 2002).
Parra-Luna argues that the court deviated from FED. R. CRIM.
P. 11 when it failed to inform him of a mandatory minimum
sentence, failed to inform him of departure provisions in the
Guidelines, and failed to inform him of the effect of supervised
release. The statutes setting forth the penalty for Parra-Luna’s
offense do not set forth a mandatory minimum sentence. See 8
U.S.C. § 1324(B)(i) and (ii). We have reviewed the
rearraignment transcript and it amply reflects that the court did
not deviate from FED. R. CRIM. P. 11 when it admonished Parra-Luna
with respect to the issues raised by Parra-Luna. Thus, Parra-
Luna’s argument that the court’s violations of FED. R. CRIM. P. 11
rendered his guilty plea unknowing and involuntary is without
merit.
Parra-Luna also asserts in a conclusional fashion that the
court violated FED. R. CRIM. P. 11 by failing to inform him that
his offense level could have been reduced had he provided
substantial assistance to the Government. He also asserts in a
conclusional fashion that the district court misapplied the
Guidelines when it sentenced him. He fails to indicate how he
may raise such a challenge in light of the appeal waiver
contained in his plea agreement. These conclusional assertions
do not meet the requirements of FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(9); see
Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). These
No. 03-51354
-3-
issues are inadequately briefed and are deemed abandoned. See
Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744,
748 (5th Cir. 1987).
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district
court is AFFIRMED.