United States v. Knox ( 2001 )

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-10155
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL KNOX,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(3:00-CR-253-ALL-D)
July 20, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
As his first issue for contesting the district court’s
revocation of his supervised release, Michael Knox asserts: the
district court should have required the Government to present
independent evidence against him; and should have provided reasons
for its judgment. At a supervised release revocation proceeding,
a defendant is entitled to certain due process protections,
including disclosure of the evidence against him and a written
explanation of the factfinder’s reasons. See Morrissey v. Brewer,
408 U.S. 471, 488-489 (1972) (setting out requirements for parole
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
revocation), United States v. Ayers, 946 F.2d 1127, 1129-30 (5th
Cir. 1991) (applying Morrissey’s requirements to revocation of
supervised release). But, Knox waived those rights by pleading
true to the charges against him. See Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 490;
United States v. Holland, 850 F.2d 1048, 1050-51 (5th Cir. 1988).
We reject Knox’s claim that, despite that waiver, more is required.
Knox’s other issue is that the district court should have
ascertained on the record that his plea of true was knowing and
voluntary as is required under Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238(1969) (requirements for guilty plea). Because Knox did not object
to the district court’s failure to do so at the revocation hearing,
review is only for plain error. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S.
725, 732-35 (1993). Knox concedes that our court has refrained
from deciding whether Boykin should be extended to revocations of
supervised release. Cf. United States v. Johns, 625 F.2d 1175 (5th
Cir. Unit B. 1980) (declining to extend Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure to probation revocation, but declining to reach
protections afforded by Boykin). Furthermore, nothing in the
record shows that Knox did not understand the consequences of his
plea or the elements of his offense, nor does he assert his plea
actually was unknowing or involuntary, thereby affecting his
substantial rights. In short, Knox has failed to show plain error.
AFFIRMED
2