Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-13-50244/USCOURTS-ca5-13-50244-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Raul Leonel Fournier-Robles
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-50244

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RAUL LEONEL FOURNIER-ROBLES, also known as Raul Leonel Fournier,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:10-CR-1563-3

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Raul Leonel Fournier-Robles (Fournier) appeals his guilty plea 

conviction for engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise for which he was 

sentenced to 300 months of imprisonment. He argues that the district court 

violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1) by improperly 

participating in his plea negotiations.

* 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

April 8, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 13-50244 Document: 00512998136 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/08/2015
No. 13-50244

Because Fournier did not object on this basis in the district court, this 

court reviews for plain error. See United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 58-59 

(2002); see also United States v. Davila, 133 S. Ct. 2139, 2148-50 (2013) 

(rejecting contention that improper participation in plea discussions under 

Rule 11 requires automatic vacatur rather than analysis under the ordinary 

harmless and plain error standards). Fournier must show error that is clear 

or obvious and affects his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 

U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes such a showing, this court has the discretion 

to correct the error but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or 

public reputation of judicial proceedings. See id. 

Fournier fails to show that any discussions among the district court, his

first trial attorney, and the attorney for the Government occurred during plea 

negotiations rather than after a plea agreement had been negotiated by the 

parties and disclosed to the district court. See United States v. Hemphill, 748 

F.3d 666, 672-73 (5th Cir. 2014) (holding that a district court may properly 

discuss and evaluate a plea agreement once it has been disclosed by the 

parties). Nor does Fournier show that the district court’s inquiry whether his 

second trial attorney intended to adhere to the already-negotiated plea 

agreement was improper. See id. Fournier fails to show error, much less clear 

or obvious error, by the district court. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135.

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 13-50244 Document: 00512998136 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/08/2015