Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50736/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50736-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rosalio Hernandez-Armendariz
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50736

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ROSALIO HERNANDEZ-ARMENDARIZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:18-CR-680-1

Before KING, GRAVES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rosalio Hernandez-Armendariz appeals his conviction for alien 

smuggling in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) and (B)(i). He argues that 

the district court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. 

Hernandez-Armendariz concedes that because he did not object to the 

magistrate judge’s report recommending the denial of his motion, our review 

is for plain error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 

* 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

FILED

March 31, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-50736 Document: 00515365642 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/31/2020
No. 19-50736

2

1420-23, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other 

grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). To establish plain error, he must show (1) an 

error that has not been affirmatively waived, (2) that is clear or obvious, and 

(3) that affects his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 

129, 135 (2009). If he makes such a showing, we have the discretion to correct 

the error but will do so only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or 

public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id.; see also Rosales-Mireles v. United 

States, 138 S. Ct. 1897, 1905 (2018).

In evaluating the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, we 

consider the totality of circumstances, including the seven factors enumerated 

in United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339, 343-44 (5th Cir. 1984). The district 

court considered each of the seven factors and found that all of them militated 

against allowing withdrawal of the plea. We see no clear or obvious error in 

the district court’s decision. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135; see also United States 

v. Lord, 915 F.3d 1009, 1013-17 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 320 (2019).

AFFIRMED.

Case: 19-50736 Document: 00515365642 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/31/2020