Text
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
February 18, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-40703
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DAVID L. SHEPARD,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:02-CR-107-1
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:* David L. Shepard appeals his sentence following a guilty plea to simple assault. See 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(5). Shepard argues that the district court's imposition of the $1000 fine violated his oral plea agreement for a "specific sentence." See FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(c)(1)(C). Because Shepard did not object in the district court to the imposition of a fine on the ground that it violated his plea agreement, we review for "plain error" only. See United States v. Green, 324 F.3d 375, 381 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 152 (2003); see also United States v. Rhodes, 253 F.3d 800, 804 (5th Cir. 2001). Under the plain error standard, the defendant bears the burden of showing that (1) there is an error, (2) the error is plain, and (3) the error affects substantial rights. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S.
725, 732 (1993).
A plea agreement arising under FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(c)(1)(C), "binds the court once the court accepts the plea agreement." FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(c)(1)(C); McClure v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 404, 413 (5th Cir. 2003); Rhodes, 253 F.3d at 804. "`Plea bargain agreements are contractual in nature, and are to be construed accordingly.'" Hentz v. Hargett, 71 F.3d 1169, 1173 (5th Cir. 1996)(citation omitted). Although the parties reached a plea agreement as to a specific term of imprisonment, namely three months, the record does not suggest that the plea agreement involved any understanding regarding a fine. Thus, the district court's acceptance of the plea agreement did not preclude the imposition of a fine. Shepard has not demonstrated error, plain or otherwise.
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
Sponsored links
This document cites
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - Larry Shelton Hentz, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Edward Hargett, Superintendent, Mississippi State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee., 71 F.3d 1169 (5th Cir. 1996)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alvin C. Green, Also Known as Bones, Also Known as Shaka, Defendant-Appellant., 324 F.3d 375 (5th Cir. 2003)
- U.S. Code - Title 18: Crimes and Criminal Procedure - 18 USC 113 - Sec. 113. Assaults within maritime and territorial jurisdiction
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Harold Rhodes, Defendant-Appellant., 253 F.3d 800 (5th Cir. 2001)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - Steven Mcclure; Clayton Smith; Michael Behan, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. John Ashcroft, Sued in His Capacity as Attorney General, Defendant-Appellant., 335 F.3d 404 (5th Cir. 2003)
See other documents that cite the same legislation