United States v. Vega-Nieto

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
July 10, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-50505
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RICARDO VEGA-NIETO,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 4:05-CR-240-3
--------------------
Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ricardo Vega-Nieto was charged, along with three co-
defendants, with possessing with the intent to distribute 50
kilograms or more of marijuana and aiding and abetting. On the
morning of his trial, Vega-Nieto attempted to enter a guilty
plea. After substantially complying with FED. R. CRIM. P. 11, the
district court determined that Vega-Nieto’s plea was not entered
voluntarily and that Vega-Nieto did not admit the elements of his
offense. The district court thus refused to accept Vega-Nieto’s
guilty plea, and Vega-Nieto was convicted by a jury and sentenced

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 06-50505
-2-
to 46 months of imprisonment, three years of supervised release,
and a $100 special assessment.
Vega-Nieto argues that the district court abused its
discretion in refusing to accept his plea. “A court may reject a
plea in the exercise of sound judicial discretion.” Santobello
v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262 (1971). A district court’s “broad
discretion” in deciding whether to reject a guilty plea “is
limited only by the procedural requirements of Rule 11.” United
States v. Wild, 92 F.3d 304, 308 (5th Cir. 1996). “A district
court ‘abuses its discretion if it bases its decision on an error
of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.’”
United States v. Smith, 417 F.3d 483, 486-87 (5th Cir.), cert.
denied, 126 S. Ct. 713 (2005).
Vega-Nieto concedes that the district court substantially
complied with Rule 11. Vega-Nieto has not addressed the district
court’s reasons for rejecting his plea. He has therefore not
shown that the district court’s findings were clearly erroneous
or that the decision to reject his plea was an abuse of
discretion. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --