* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-50025

c/w No. 12-50026 

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

EDWARD LEE KOCH,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:08-CR-3294-1

USDC No. 3:11-CR-1559-1

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Edward Lee Koch was convicted in 2009 and 2011, based on guilty pleas,

for failing to register as a sex offender. For the former, he received, inter alia,

ten years’ supervised release;for the latter, revocation ofthat supervised release

and 30 months’ imprisonment. Challenging his convictions, Koch contends: his

2011 guilty plea was unintelligent or involuntary, and the district court erred by

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 29, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk
No. 12-50025 c/w No. 12-50026

2

not allowing him to withdraw it; his attorney provided ineffective assistance; and

both convictions are invalid because retroactive application of the Sex Offender

Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) violates the Administrative

Procedures Act. 

Regarding his guilty-plea claim, Koch contends his disputing the

Government’s evidence during allocution demonstrated his desire to plead not

guilty, despite his failing to request permission to withdraw his plea. “[A]

district court’s acceptance of a guilty plea is a factual finding” reviewed for clear

error. United States v. Angeles-Mascote, 206 F.3d 529, 530 (5th Cir. 2000). 

“Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 ensures that a guilty plea is

knowing and voluntary by requiring the district court to follow certain

procedures before accepting such a plea.” United States v. Carreon-Ibarra, 673

F.3d 358, 364 (5th Cir. 2012) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

Before accepting the guilty plea, the court ensured Koch was competent and

understood both the adverse evidence and the consequences of his plea.

Moreover, his reaffirming his guilt and failing to request withdrawal of the plea

vitiates any contention he demonstrated a desire to withdraw his plea during

allocution. In any event, this contention lacks factual or legal support. E.g.,

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

relevant to plea withdrawal). 

Koch’s having failed to raise his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim in

district court, we decline to address it on direct appeal because the record is

insufficiently developed. UnitedStates v. Cantwell, 470F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir.

2006).

Regarding the validity of both convictions, Koch waived his SORNA-based

retroactivity challenge to his 2011 conviction by pleading guilty unconditionally,

United States v. Sealed Appellant, 526 F.3d 241, 242 (5th Cir. 2008)

(unconditional plea waives challenges to non-jurisdictional defects), and he may

not rely on his appealing the 2011 supervised-release revocation to contest his
No. 12-50025 c/w No. 12-50026

3

2009 conviction under the same theory, United States v. Willis, 563 F.3d 168,

170 (5th Cir. 2009) (appeal of supervised-release revocation no basis for

challenge to underlying conviction).

AFFIRMED.