Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

583 F.2d 178

Docket No. 78-5259

United States v. Taylor

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Nov. 2, 1978.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1978-11-02

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently March 1981

5 federal appellate ·

3 counsel of record

Relies on Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York · Amperex Electronic Corp. v. New York Racing Assn., Inc. · United States v. Coronado

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1978-11-02

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Summary Calendar.*

¶2Thomas L. Farris, Fort Worth, Tex. (Court-appointed), for defendant-appellant.

¶3Raymond Lee Taylor, pro se.

¶4Kenneth J. Mighell, U. S. Atty., Gerhard E. Kleinschmidt, Asst. U. S. Atty., Fort Worth, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.

¶5Before THORNBERRY, GODBOLD and RUBIN, Circuit Judges.

¶7PER CURIAM:

¶8The defendant contends that the trial judge failed to comply with F.R.Cr.P. *17911(d) because he did not personally address defendant and determine that his guilty plea was “voluntary.” The judge asked defendant if his plea was made “of his own free will and accord.” The choice of different words having the same meaning is of no consequence.1

¶9The government’s argument that alleged failure to comply with Rule 11 can be only raised by § 2255 is without merit. See U. S. v. Coronado, 554 F.2d 166 (CA5), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 870, 98 S.Ct. 214, 54 L.Ed.2d 149 (1977).

¶10AFFIRMED.

/583/f2d/178 · .json · Public domain