Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Louis WILKERSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-12-11
Citations: 257 F. App'x 808
Docket Number: No. 06-31245
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Louis WILKERSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 257
Pages: 808–809

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Louis WILKERSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-31245
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 11, 2007.
James Thomas McManus, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Rebecca L. Hudsmith, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Louis Wilkerson pleaded guilty to theft of Government funds pursuant to a plea agreement in which the Government agreed to move for dismissal of other pending charges. Wilkerson stipulated at his rearraignment hearing that he had obtained $12,435.45 in Supplemental Security Income benefits that he was not entitled to receive. Wilkerson nevertheless objected at sentencing that this loss amount was excessive, citing his good faith belief that the Government's loss was under $10,000. Overruling the objection, the distl'ict court sentenced Wilkerson to a nine-month term of imprisonment and ordered that he pay $12,435.56 in restitution.
Wilkerson argues on appeal that the district court plainly erred in accepting his guilty plea because it is "obvious" that he was not aware of the consequences of his stipulation to the amount of loss involved. Wilkerson suggests that, in light of his objection at sentencing, the court should have sua sponte inquired whether Wilkerson wished to withdraw his plea. Wilkerson admits that his nine-month sentence is reasonable, and he does not challenge the propriety of the restitution order. It is clear from the record that the district court did not err, plainly or otherwise, in determining that Wilkerson's plea was vol untary. See United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir.1994) (en banc). 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.