USA v. Edis Guzman-Hernandez

Filing

USA v. Edis Guzman-Hernandez

Doc. 0

Case: 09-40860

Document: 00511210021

Page: 1

Date Filed: 08/20/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-40860 S u m m a r y Calendar August 20, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

U N IT E D STATES OF AMERICA, P la in t if f -A p p e lle e v. E D I S EDGARDO GUZMAN-HERNANDEZ, also known as Rafael Perez, D e fe n d a n t -A p p e lla n t

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:09-CR-530-1

B e fo r e JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* E d is Edgardo Guzman-Hernandez appeals his guilty plea conviction for b e in g unlawfully present in the United States following deportation, in violation o f 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Guzman-Hernandez argues for the first time on appeal that h is rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), were violated and that t h e district court violated FED. R. CRIM. P. 11 by failing to inquire whether G u z m a n -H e r n a n d e z was interrogated in violation of Miranda.

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-40860

Document: 00511210021 Page: 2 No. 09-40860

Date Filed: 08/20/2010

B y pleading guilty, Guzman-Hernandez waived his argument regarding a n y violation of his Miranda rights. See United States v. Bell, 966 F.2d 914, 915 (5 t h Cir. 1992). Rule 11 has no requirement that the district court inquire about p o s s ib le Miranda violations. He also argues that his counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing t o "hold the government to its burden of proof [regarding compliance with M ir a n d a ] or raise the issue of admissibility to the court." The record is

i n s u ffic ie n t ly developed to allow consideration at this time of GuzmanH e r n a n d e z 's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; such claims generally " c a n n o t be resolved on direct appeal when [they have] not been raised before the d is t r ic t court since no opportunity existed to develop the record on the merits of t h e allegations." United States v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006) (in t e r n a l quotation marks and citation omitted). The district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.

2