Court Opinion

ID: 24400
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 08:21:16+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:56:57.362050
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
                       ____________________

                           No. 01-10091
                         Summary Calendar
                       ____________________

                     UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee,

                              versus

                      WILLIE LEON WASHINGTON,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant.
____________________________________________________________

           Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the Northern District of Texas
                         (5:94-CR-31-2-C)
____________________________________________________________
                        June 4, 2001

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Willie Leon Washington appeals the district court’s revocation

of his supervised release. Washington was represented by appointed

counsel (Federal Public Defender).

     First, Washington maintains the court:     should have required

the Government to present independent evidence against him; and

should have provided reasons for its judgment.     Washington waived

these rights by pleading true to the charges in the revocation

motion.   See Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489 (1972); United

     *
      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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
States v. Ayers, 946 F.2d 1127, 1129-30 (5th Cir. 1991); United

States v. Holland, 850 F.2d 1048, 1050-51 (5th Cir. 1988).

     Second, Washington also contends, for the first time on

appeal, that the court should have ascertained on the record that

this plea was knowing and voluntary.   He asserts that, even though

a revocation hearing is involved, such court-action is required

under Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969).   Because Washington

did not object to the court’s failure to do so, review is only for

plain error. E.g., United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64

(5th Cir. 1994)(en banc), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1196 (1995).

Washington does not even satisfy the first step for plain error

review; he has failed to show “clear” or “obvious” error arising

out of not being provided Boykin protections at the hearing.

                                                       AFFIRMED

                                2