United States v. Hillard

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
October 30, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-41291
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ARRICK HILLARD, also known as Pie,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:01-CR-33-1
--------------------
Before JOLLY, WIENER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Arrick Hillard appeals his guilty-plea conviction for
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. Hillard
argues that the magistrate judge committed reversible error at
the rearraignment proceedings by failing to 1) inform him that he
had the right to plead not guilty or to persist in his not-guilty
plea, 2) advise him of the effects of supervised release, and
3) fully explain the nature of the conspiracy charge. Hillard

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 02-41291
-2-
also contends that the magistrate judge erred in delegating and
permitting the Government to conduct certain FED. R. CRIM. P. 11
admonishments, and he asserts that there was an insufficient
factual basis for his plea. Hillard argues that the magistrate
judge’s flawed compliance with the requirements of FED. R. CRIM.
P. 11 renders his guilty plea involuntarily made. Hillard
further asserts that his case should be remanded to the district
court for disposition of his outstanding pro se motion to
withdraw his guilty plea, which Hillard filed subsequent to his
rearraignment and prior to his sentencing.
We have reviewed the record and the briefs submitted by the
parties and hold that the magistrate judge’s alleged FED. R. CRIM.
P. 11 errors/omissions do not rise to the level of plain error.
See United States v. Vonn, 122 S. Ct. 1043, 1046 (2002); United
States v. Reyes, 300 F.3d 555, 558 (5th Cir. 2002); United States
v. Marek, 238 F.3d 310, 315 (5th Cir.)(en banc), cert. denied,
534 U.S. 813 (2001); United States v. Cuevas-Andrade, 232 F.3d
440, 444 (5th Cir. 2000).
Because Hillard was represented by counsel during the
criminal proceedings, his pro se letter to withdraw his guilty
plea was an unauthorized motion that the district court was
permitted to ignore. See United States v. Ogbonna, 184 F.3d 447,
449 & n.1 (5th Cir. 1999); United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140,
142 (5th Cir. 1994).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --