Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Efrain PORTILLO-CABALLERO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-07-10
Citations: 575 F. App'x 281
Docket Number: No. 12-41354
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Efrain PORTILLO-CABALLERO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 575
Pages: 281–281

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Efrain PORTILLO-CABALLERO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-41354
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 10, 2014.
Eileen K. Wilson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Ray Christopher Goldsmith, Esq., Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Efrain Portillo-Caballero pleaded guilty to being an alien found unlawfully in the United States after deportation, and he was sentenced to a 46-month term of imprisonment. Portillo-Caballero contends that the district court failed to inform him at rearraignment, as is required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1)(A), that the Government had the right to use against him any statement that he gave under oath in a prosecution for perjury or false statement. The Government concedes that Portillo-Caballero did not receive the admonishment under Rule 11(b)(1)(A) but contends that the district court's omission did not affect Portillo-Caballero's substantial rights.
Because Portillo-Caballero did not raise this issue in the district court, we review only for plain error. See United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 58-59, 122 S.Ct. 1043, 152 L.Ed.2d 90 (2002). Portillo-Caballero has not shown a reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have entered his guilty plea. See United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 83, 124 S.Ct. 2333, 159 L.Ed.2d 157 (2004).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.