United States v. Hoot
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM: *
Kevin Hoot appeals his sentence for bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). We consider this appeal despite Hoot’s waiver of his right to appeal in his plea bargain agreement because during the Rule 11 hearing the district court did not ask the defendant whether he understood his “waiver of appeal and the consequences.” See United States v. Robinson, 187 F.3d 516, 517-18 (5th Cir.1999); see also Fed. R.Ceim. P. 11(b)(1)(N). Nor did the district court ask Hoot whether he read the plea agreement and understood it. See United States v. Portillo, 18 F.3d 290, 293 (5th…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- United States v. Nicholas Arthur PortilloCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1994
- United States v. RobinsonCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1999
- United States v. Cuevas-AndradeCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2000
- United States v. Vasquez-BernalCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1999
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- United States v. SuraCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2008
- United States v. SuraCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2008
- United States v. Sura, JamesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2007
- United States v. Sura, JamesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2008