United States v. Alvarez , 197 F. App'x 341 ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT September 5, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-50732
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
VICTOR CARLOS ALVAREZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:98-CR-295-ALL
--------------------
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and KING and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Victor Carlos Alvarez appeals the revocation of his probation
following his 1999 guilty-plea conviction for bank fraud. He
asserts that there was insufficient evidence to support his
revocation and ensuing sentence and that the district court, when
it truncated Alvarez’s cross-examination of his probation officer,
denied Alvarez his due process rights.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking
Alvarez’s probation in light of Alvarez’s plea of true to eight
violations of the conditions of probation. See United States v.
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
Teran, 98 F.3d 831, 836 (5th Cir. 1996). Moreover, Alvarez’s
admissions of violations of the conditions of probation waived his
due process protections. See United States v. Holland, 850 F.2d
1048, 1050-51 (5th Cir. 1988).
Alvarez conclusionally asserts that the district court did not
afford him an adequate opportunity to allocute, that the district
court erred in quashing a subpoena duces tecum, and that his actual
sentence was excessive in comparison to the suggested guideline
sentencing range. These assertions are not adequately briefed, and
we do not consider them. See United States v. Torres-Aguilar,
352 F.3d 934, 936 n.2 (5th Cir. 2003); FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(9).
Nor do we consider Alvarez’s arguments, raised for the first time
in his reply brief, that he was never notified of his default in
restitution and that the admissions he made at his revocation
hearing were involuntary. See United States v. Avants, 367 F.3d
433, 449 (5th Cir. 2004).
AFFIRMED.
2