United States v. Angulo-Gonzalez

No. 99-20221
-1-
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-20221
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ALDEMAR ANGUILO-GONZALEZ, also known as Carlos Ramon Fernandez,
also known as Chile, also known as Aldomar Angulo-Gonzalez,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-98-CR-398-ALL
--------------------
February 16, 2000
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Represented by retained counsel, Aldomar Anguilo-Gonzalez
pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by an illegal alien and
possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and he was
sentenced to the lowest sentence recommended under the Sentencing
Guidelines. The Federal Public Defender, Anguilo-Gonzalez’s
counsel on appeal, argues that his conviction and sentence must
be vacated because the district court violated FED. R. CRIM.
P. 11(c)(3) by failing to advise Anguilo-Gonzalez that he had a
right to appointed counsel at trial if he could not afford a
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 99-20221
-2-
retained attorney. Counsel does not otherwise challenge the
validity of Anguilo-Gonzalez’s conviction and sentence.
Our review of the record convinces us that the district
court’s omission was not material to Anguilo-Gonzalez’s decision
to plead guilty. United States v. Johnson, 1 F.3d 296, 298 (5th
Cir. 1993) (en banc); see United States v. Caston, 615 F.2d 1111,
1115 (5th Cir. 1980). Vacating and remanding for a trial or a
new guilty plea would be an exercise in futility which could
easily result in a harsher sentence. Thus, the appeal is
frivolous and is dismissed. See United States v. Burleson, 22
F.3d 93, 95 (5th Cir. 1994); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
APPEAL DISMISSED.