Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Daniel Fierro

* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-50900
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
DANIEL FIERRO
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:06-CR-1746-ALL
Before KING, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Daniel Fierro entered a guilty plea to one count of receiving a firearm
while under indictment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(n), 924(a)(1)(D), and was
sentenced to 40 months of imprisonment. He appeals his conviction on the
grounds that the factual basis presented at rearraignment was insufficient to
support his guilty plea. He contends that, at rearraignment, he denied receiving
firearms and accepted the guilty plea due to judicial coercion.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
April 18, 2008
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 07-50900
2
Fierro did not object to the sufficiency of the factual basis in the district
court, and thus this court reviews for plain error. See United States v. Marek,
238 F.3d 310, 315 (5th Cir. 2001). At rearraignment, Fierro admitted that he
possessed two of the weapons charged in the indictment, and admitted to
meeting his friend, Beto, at his grandparents’ house for the specific purpose of
retrieving two weapons, which constitutes “receipt” under the statute. See
United States v. Clark, 741 F.2d 699, 703 (5th Cir. 1984) (explaining that, in an
analogous offense, “receipt” is knowingly taking possession). Further, this “court
may consult the whole record when considering the effect on substantial rights.”
United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 59 (2002). The record indicates that, in the
presentence interview, Fierro admitted committing the charged offense. He has
therefore failed to show reversible plain error with respect to the sufficiency of
the factual basis. Finally, there is no evidence of judicial coercion in the record.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --