Pursuant to5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determi ned that this o pini on should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE U NI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 40606 Su m m ar y Cal endar
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee
v. LEOB ARD O VI LLARREA L, D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant

A pp eal f

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ct C ou rt f ort he Sout her n D i st r i c t of Texas U SD C N o. 7: 06- C R

- 220- 1
B ef ore H IG G IN B O T H A M , C L E M E N T , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui t Ju dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * L eobard o V i l l arrealapp eal s hi s g u i l t y- pl ea conv i ct i on f or es cape f

rom fe de r al c us t o dy i n vi o l at i o n o f 18 U
. S. C. § 75 1( a)
. H e ar gue s t hatt he i ndi c t m e nt w as f l aw ed: t hat t he l ac k of a si gnat ure vi ol at ed hi s c ons t i t ut i onalr i ght s, t hat i t w a s du pl i ci t ou s, an d that t h e fact s di d n ot sup port t h e al l egati on s. H e al so t ak e s i s s ue w i t h t he r e ar r ai gnm e nt a t w hi c h he pl e ad e d gui l t y, ur gi ng t hatt he di st r i c t c our t fai l ed i n m ul t i pl e w ays t o c om pl y w i t h F ede r alR ul e o f C r i m i nal Proc edur e 1 1. United States Court of A pp eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma y 3, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-40606 Document: 00511098011 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/03/2010N o. 09- 40606

Un it ed St atesv . L am

pazi an ie , 2 5 1 F .3 d 5 1 9 , 5 2 5( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 1 ). 1 Uni ted States v. Da ughenba ugh , 54 9 F .3d 101 0, 101 2 (5th Cir. 2 008) (explainin g that 2 agu il typ l e aw aiv e s al ln o n j u ri s di c t i o n ald e f

e c t s i nth ep ri o rp r o c e e di n g s) ; s e ea lso U nit ed States v. Co tton , 53 5 U .S. 62 5, 6 30– 31 (200 2) (rulingth at indictment defects are not j u ri sdic ti on al pr ob le ms)
. See Unit ed States v. Vonn , 5 3 5U .S
. 5 5 , 5 8

– 5 9( 2 0 0 2 ). 3 Unit ed States v. Domingu ez Benitez , 5 4 2 U .S
. 7 4 , 7 6( 2 0 0 4). 4 F ir s t , a s to th e a ll e g e d p r o b le m s w it h th e in d i c t m e n t , t h e g r a n d ju r y ’s f o r e pe r s o n di d s i gn i t . Vi l l ar r e al ’ s gui l t y pl e a w ai ve d hi s ri ghtt o cha l l e nge t he i n d i ctm en t as d u p l i ci tou s. B y p l ea d i n g g u i l ty, h e a l so w a i ve d h i s ri gh t t o 1 cha l l en ge an y fact u al defect s i n t h e i n di ct m en t , an d, i n an y even t , a revi ew of 2 th e rec ord sh ow s th e a rg u m en t t o h a ve n o m erit. S e c o n d , b e c a u s e V illa r r e a l d id n o t b e fo r e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t r a is e h is cha l l en ges to th e g u i l t y pl ea h eari n g, w e revi ew f or pl ai n err or. To secure a 3
r e v e r s a l fo r a n u n p r e s e r v e d R u le 1 1 fa ilin g , V illa r r e a l m u s t “ s h o w a re a s o n a b le proba bi l i t y t h at, bu t f or the error , h e w ou l d n ot h ave en t ered t h e pl ea. ” A f t er 4
r e vi e w i ng t h e re c o r d, w e a r e no t pe r s uad e d t hatVi l l ar r e alha s m ad e t he ne c e s s ar y s ho w i ng, a nd t he fac t s s upp o r t t he c o nvi c t i o n. AF F I RMED. Case: 09-40606 Document: 00511098011 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/03/2010