
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Alfredo ARZATE-DAVALOS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-20275
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    May 1, 2009.
    
      James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Cheryl Harris Diggs, Diggs Law Firm, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before DAVIS, GARZA and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Alfredo Arzate-Davalos (Arzate) pleaded guilty to conspiracy to harbor illegal aliens. He was sentenced to 33 months of imprisonment, the lowest possible term under the applicable guidelines sentencing range.

Arzate appeals his conviction but makes no argument with regard to his sentence. Arzate seeks to have his plea set aside, asserting that it was unknowing and, thus, involuntary due to the district court’s failure to comply with the requirements of Fed. R.Crim. P. 11 during his rearraignment.

When, as here, a defendant does not object to Rule 11 errors in the district court, plain error review applies. See United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 59, 122 S.Ct. 1043, 152 L.Ed.2d 90 (2002). To show plain error, the appellant must show an error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. United States v. Baker, 538 F.3d 324, 332 (5th Cir.2008), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 129 S.Ct. 962, 173 L.Ed.2d 153 (2009). If the appellant makes such a showing, this court has the discretion to correct the error but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. Arzate has failed to show that, but for the asserted Rule 'll errors, he would not have pleaded guilty. See United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 83, 124 S.Ct. 2333, 159 L.Ed.2d 157 (2004). Nor has he shown that, taken together, the district court’s omissions had a cumulative effect sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the proceeding. See id. Accordingly, he has failed to show that his plea was unknowing and involuntary. Id.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     