Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Talmadge Jennings WHEAT, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-04-21
Citations: 95 F. App'x 545
Docket Number: No. 03-20632
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Talmadge Jennings WHEAT, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 95
Pages: 545–546

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Talmadge Jennings WHEAT, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-20632
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 21, 2004.
James Lee Turner, Assistant US Attorney, Jeffery Alan Babcock, US Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
John Riley Friesell, Bellaire, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Talmadge Jennings Wheat appeals his guilty-plea conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). After Wheat was sentenced in this case, he was sentenced in a state court on state charges. The district court did not impose Wheat's federal sentence to run concurrently with his subsequent state sentence. Wheat argues that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because it was induced by his counsel's belief that his state and federal sentences would run concurrently.
Wheat has failed to show that the district court, the federal prosecutor, or his federal court trial counsel induced him to plead guilty by representing to him that his federal sentence would run concurrently with any state sentence he might later receive. The validity and timing of Wheat's federal sentence are not affected by the failure of his state counsel, the state prosecutor, or the state court to impose or execute his state sentence properly. See Opela v. United States, 415 F.2d 231, 232 (5th Cir.1969). Thus, Wheat has not shown that his plea was not knowing and voluntary, and the district court did not plainly err in failing to impose his federal sentence concurrently with his anticipated state sentence. See United States v. Brown, 328 F.3d 787, 789 (5th Cir.2003).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.