Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan Ramon ESPARZA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-08-21
Citations: 236 F. App'x 133
Docket Number: No. 06-20473
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan Ramon ESPARZA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 236
Pages: 133–133

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan Ramon ESPARZA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-20473
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 21, 2007.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Kurt Budd Wentz, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Juan Ramon Esparza appeals his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine and 50 or more grams of methamphetamine, possession with intent to distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine, and possession with intent to distribute 50 or more grams of methamphetamine. Esparza argues that the district court erred in not advising him that he had a constitutional right against self-incrimination at the rearraignment hearing. Because Esparza did not raise this issue in the district court, we review for plain error. See United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 59, 122 S.Ct. 1043, 152 L.Ed.2d 90 (2002).
The district court advised Esparza that he would not be required to testify unless he voluntarily chose to do so in his defense. Esparza concedes that this statement complied with Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(b)(1)(E). There is no requirement that the district court advise a defendant that he has a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination at the guilty plea hearing. Esparza has not shown that there was any error, plain or otherwise, in the district court's Rule 11 proceeding or that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary. See Vonn, 535 U.S. at 59, 122 S.Ct. 1043.
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.