DAY

v.

DEANDA, JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Lovett, 844 F.2d 487 (7th Cir. 1988)
  …it was harmless. Fed.R. Crim.P. 11(h). See United States v. Caston, 615 F. 2d 1111, 1115-16 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 831, 101 S.Ct. 99, 66 L.Ed.2d 36 (1980). See also United States v. Stead, 746 F. 2d 355, 357 (6th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1030, 105 S.Ct. 1403, 84 L.Ed.2d 790 (1985); Guichard, supra, 779 F. 2d at 1142-43. As this appeal illustrates, however, a district court should track the language of Rule 11 unless there is a persuasive reason for not doing so. As the Third Circuit rec…
• United States v. Artemio Gomez-Cuevas, 917 F.2d 1521 (10th Cir. 1990)
  …iamson, 806 F. 2d 216, 222 (10th Cir.1986), we held a district court’s failure to explicate the components of a jury trial does not violate the requirements of Rule ll.3 Accord United States v. Stead, 746 F. 2d 355, 357 (6th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1030, 105 S.Ct. 1403, 84 L.Ed.2d 790 (1985). The inquiry is not whether the rights inherent in a jury trial were enumerated, but rather whether the record affirmatively shows “a voluntary and intelligent plea.” Stinson, 473 F. 2d at 915-16. The failure t…
• United States v. Gyan Parkash Syal, 963 F.2d 900 (6th Cir. 1992)
  …in Rule 11 of a harmless error provision. See Rule 11(h). A technical failure to comply with Rule 11 does not now require vacation of a plea and opportunity for a new plea. See United States v. Stead, 746 F. 2d 355, 356 (6th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1030, 105 S.Ct. 1403, 84 L.Ed.2d 790 (1985) (noting the addition of the harmless error standard to Rule 11 and holding that the change in the Rule modified the analysis of a Rule 11 question, so that “substantial compliance” rather than the “strict compl…