Case ID: f-appx_323/html/0361-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Efrain Isidro PINEDA-LOZANO, also known as Richard Lozano, also known as Mario Efran Solis, also known as Pedro Pagoada, also known as Richard Solis, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-30657
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    April 30, 2009.
    M. Irene Gonzalez, U.S. Attorney’s Office Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Roma A. Kent, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Efrain Isidro Pineda-Lozano (Pineda) appeals his guilty plea conviction of being found unlawfully in the United States after having been deported subsequent to an aggravated felony conviction. He argues that the variance between the conviction used as a basis for enhancement in the indictment and the conviction used to enhance his offense level at sentencing deprived him of notice of the consequences of his guilty plea.

We review Pineda’s argument for plain error. See United States v. Baker, 538 F.3d 324, 332 (5th Cir.2008), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 962, 173 L.Ed.2d 153 (2009). With respect to sentencing, the consequences of entering a guilty plea mean only that the defendant knows the maximum possible prison sentence and fine that may be imposed. United States v. Gaitan, 954 F.2d 1005, 1012 (5th Cir.1992). The record reflects that Pineda was advised and understood that he faced a maximum term of imprisonment of 20 years. Accordingly, he cannot demonstrate plain error. See id. at 1011-12.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.