United States v. Bates
This text of United States v. Bates (United States v. Bates) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-50198 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee, versus
AARON BATES,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (SA-01-CR-339-1)
December 5, 2002
Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Aaron Bates appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 71-month
sentence for assault with a deadly weapon. He contends his trial
counsel was ineffective. He also asserts the district court erred:
during the FED. R. CRIM. P. 11 plea colloquy; in denying a motion to
withdraw the guilty plea and in calculating his sentence under the
Guidelines.
The record is inadequate to resolve Bates’ ineffective-
assistance-of-counsel claim; we, therefore, decline to review it on
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. direct appeal. E.g., United States v. Higdon, 832 F.2d 312, 314
(5th Cir. 1987), cert. denied 484 U.S. 1075 (1988).
Bates made no objection to errors during the FED. R. CRIM. P. 11
colloquy. Based on the record as a whole, he has not demonstrated
any of the asserted errors affected his substantial rights. See
United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 122 S. Ct. 1043, 1046 (2002).
Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
Bates’ motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Bates filed the motion
because the Government sought to increase Bates’ offense level for
obstruction of justice and requested an upward departure, but the
district court denied both requests. See United States v. Grant,
117 F.3d 788, 789 (5th Cir. 1997).
With respect to the sentencing error, raised for the first
time on appeal, Bates does not request resentencing; rather, he
raises the issue to support his contention that his conviction
should be vacated and his plea withdrawn. Bates makes no showing
of plain error. See United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160,
162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc), cert. denied 513 U.S. 1196
(1995).
AFFIRMED
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Bates, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-bates-ca5-2002.