(caption unavailable)

* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular
cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined
that this opinion should not be published.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 92-8639
Conference Calendar
__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ROBERT W. JACK,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of
USDC No. A-92-CA-197
- - - - - - - - - -
August 20, 1993
Before JOLLY, JONES, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Robert W. Jack argues that his plea was not knowing and
voluntary because he relied in making his plea on the
Government's promise to make known to the sentencing court that
he had provided substantial assistance to the Government. Jack
contends that because the Government failed to fulfill this
promise and file a § 5K1.1 motion for departure for his
assistance to the Government, his sentence must be vacated and he
must be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 92-8639
-2-
Relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is reserved for constitutional
errors and for a "narrow range of injuries that could not have
been raised on direct appeal and would, if condoned, result in a
complete miscarriage of justice." United States v. Vaughn, 955
F.2d 367, 368 (5th Cir. 1992). A guilty plea based on a breached
plea agreement is subject to collateral attack under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255. United States v. Cates, 952 F.2d 149, 151 (5th Cir.),
cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 2319 (1992). If a guilty plea is induced
by promises or threats, it is deprived of the character of a
voluntary act, and is void. Id.
The district court sentenced Jack to 60 months of
imprisonment, the mandatory minimum sentence. The record
indicates that the sentencing court knew of Jack's cooperation
and took it into consideration when sentencing him. The district
court judge who sentenced Jack had also presided over the trial
of one of Jack's co-defendants, and therefore, knew of Jack's
cooperative testimony in the case. Additionally, the plea
agreement did not require the Government to file a U.S.S.G.
§ 5K1.1 motion for departure. Consequently, the Government did
not breach the terms of the plea agreement, and Jack's guilty
plea is valid. The district court's denial of Jack's 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 motion is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --