Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Lewis Gilmore HURST, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-04-04
Citations: 272 F. App'x 409
Docket Number: No. 07-20142
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Lewis Gilmore HURST, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 272
Pages: 409–410

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Lewis Gilmore HURST, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-20142
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 4, 2008.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jerome Godinich, Jr., Law Office of Jerome Godinich Jr., Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before REAVLEY, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Lewis Gilmore Hurst has appealed his conviction of three counts of bank robbery by force, violence, and intimidation (counts 1, 4, and 7), three counts of using, carrying, and brandishing a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence (counts 2, 5, and 8), and three counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm (counts 3, 6, and 9). After the district court refused to permit Hurst to present an insanity defense, Hurst maintained his not guilty plea, stipulated to the facts alleged by the Government in the indictment, and was convicted by the district court following a bench trial.
Hurst contends that his inculpatory stipulation was tantamount to a guilty plea and should have been accompanied by the protections of Fed.R.Crim.P. 11. Because this issue was not asserted below, our review is for plain error. See United States v. Castro-Trevino, 464 F.3d 536, 541 (5th Cir.2006). The issue raised by Hurst was rejected by the court in United States v. Robertson, 698 F.2d 703, 704-10 (5th Cir. 1983). Hurst has not shown that Robertson should be distinguished or that his substantial rights were affected by any error in accepting his inculpatory stipulation. See Castro-Trevino, 464 F.3d at 541. The district court's judgment is 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.