DocketNumber: 08-50864
Citation Numbers: 326 F. App'x 302
Judges: King, Dennis, Owen
Filed Date: 6/2/2009
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/5/2024
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED June 2, 2009 No. 08-50864 Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. ABEL CASTILLO, also known as Junky, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:08-CR-62-ALL Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Abel Castillo pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to being a felon in possession of a firearm, and the district court sentenced him to 24 months in prison to be followed by two years of supervised release. The offense occurred on or about May 31, 2003; however, the Government did not file the indictment until January 9, 2008. On appeal, Castillo argues that the * Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4. No. 08-50864 Government’s pre-indictment delay violated his due process rights and that the district court clearly erred in not making specific findings on the issue. Castillo did not raise the issue of pre-indictment delay prior to sentencing, nor did he manifest an intention to preserve the issue for appeal by entering a conditional guilty plea. See United States v. Bell,966 F.2d 914
, 915-16 (5th Cir. 1992). A review of the plea colloquy reveals that the district court provided the appropriate admonitions to ensure that Castillo entered a voluntary guilty plea and understood the consequences of entering the plea. See Boykin v. Alabama,395 U.S. 238
, 244 (1969); see also United States v. Lampazianie,251 F.3d 519
, 524 (5th Cir. 2001); F ED. R. C RIM. 11. Accordingly, because Castillo entered an unconditional and voluntary guilty plea, this court is precluded from considering the merits of his pre-indictment delay claim. See United States v. Sealed Appellant,526 F.3d 241
, 242 (5th Cir.), cert. denied129 S. Ct. 521
(Nov. 2008); Bell,966 F.2d at 915-16
; United States v. Brice,565 F.2d 336
, 337 (5th Cir. 1977). AFFIRMED. 2