United States v. Cuevas-Andrade , 232 F.3d 440 ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    _____________________
    No. 99-10976
    _____________________
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    JUAN CUEVAS-ANDRADE,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the
    Northern District of Texas
    _________________________________________________________________
    December 29, 2000
    ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
    Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    The Petition for Rehearing is GRANTED as follows:        The second
    paragraph of footnote three1 will be deleted and will be replaced
    with the following:
    1
    The second paragraph     of   footnote   three   in   the   original
    opinion reads as follows:
    Furthermore, we must observe that if either the United
    States Attorney or the Federal Public Defender believes
    the colloquy is inadequate under Rule 11, as officers of
    the court they have “both an obligation and an interest
    in insuring that a guilty plea proceeding complies with
    all constitutional and statutory requirements,” United
    States v. Echegollen-Barrueta, 
    195 F.3d 786
    , 790 n.2 (5th
    Cir. 1999), and accordingly should bring any failure in
    compliance with Rule 11 to the attention of the court.
    Furthermore, we must observe that neither the United
    States Attorney nor Cuevas-Andrade’s attorney raised any
    contemporaneous objections to the district court’s
    failure to comply with Rule 11. (It should be noted,
    however, that Cuevas-Andrade is represented by new
    counsel on appeal.) As officers of the court, attorneys
    have “both an obligation and an interest in insuring that
    a guilty plea proceeding complies with all constitutional
    and statutory requirements,” United States v. Echegollen-
    Barrueta, 
    195 F.3d 786
    , 790 n.2 (5th Cir. 1999), and
    accordingly should immediately bring any failure in
    compliance with Rule 11 to the attention of the district
    court.
    In all other respects, the Petition for Rehearing is DENIED.