Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victor Manuel ARROYO-BALDERAS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-05
Citations: 129 F. App'x 911
Docket Number: No. 04-50174
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victor Manuel ARROYO-BALDERAS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JONES, BARKSDALE and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 129
Pages: 911–912

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victor Manuel ARROYO-BALDERAS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-50174.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided May 5, 2005.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Ruben P. Morales, El Paso, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JONES, BARKSDALE and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Victor Manuel Arroyo-Balderas pleaded guilty to a superseding information charging him with misprision of a felony. Arroyo has appealed his conviction, arguing that Ms guilty plea was involuntarily entered because the factual basis does not support his guilty plea to misprision of a felony. Arroyo concedes that this court's review is for plain error. See United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir.1994) (en banc).
Arroyo has not shown that the district court plainly erred in determining that the guilty plea had a basis in fact establishing the essential elements of the offense. The record reflects that Arroyo understood that he was pleading guilty to failing to disclose to an FBI agent that he knew of a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 6928(d)(2)(A). Moreover, any error on the part of the district court did not affect Arroyo's substantial rights. Arroyo's plea was to a substantially reduced charge after the Government had presented its evidence and after Arroyo's motion for a judgment of acquittal was denied. The facts and charges were well understood by the parties at that stage of the proceeding. The 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.