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

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.