United States v. Parra-Parra

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT July 19, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-50370
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RAMON PARRA-PARRA,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:04-CR-1585-2-DB
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ramon Parra-Parra appeals the 120-month sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction of conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute marijuana and possession with intent to
distribute marijuana. He argues that the district court lacked
authority to enhance his sentence because the Information and
Amended Information filed by the Government did not satisfy the
requirements of 21 U.S.C. § 851.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-50370
-2-
For the first time on appeal, Parra challenges the
Information by arguing that the Government failed to properly
file and serve the document. Because Parra did not challenge the
Information in the district court on the basis he now asserts,
his argument is subject to plain error review. See United States
v. Dodson, 288 F.3d 153, 161-62 (5th Cir. 2002); see also United
States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-37 (1993).
A review of the rearraignment transcript indicates that the
Government filed and served the Information prior to the entry of
Parra’s guilty plea, as required by § 851. Additionally,
although the Information identified the wrong venue for the prior
conviction, the record establishes that Parra was not misled by
the erroneous venue designation. See United States v. Steen, 55
F.3d 1022, 1028 (5th Cir. 1995). Therefore, the error does not
negate the notice provided by the Information. See id.Parra has not established plain error with regard to the
sufficiency of the Information. See Olano, 507 U.S. at 731-37.
Because the original Information filed in this case was
sufficient under § 851, it is not necessary to address Parra’s
arguments regarding the sufficiency of the Amended Information.
The district court did not lack authority to impose the
enhanced sentence. See Steen, 55 F.3d at 1025. Accordingly, the
judgment is AFFIRMED.