United States v. Baeza-Castillo

72 F. App'x 170
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedAugust 18, 2003
Docket02-51352
StatusUnpublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 72 F. App'x 170 (United States v. Baeza-Castillo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Baeza-Castillo, 72 F. App'x 170 (5th Cir. 2003).

Opinion

PER CURIAM. *

Jorge Enrique Baeza-Castillo appeals his conditional guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry following deportation. As an initial matter, Baeza-Castillo’s motion to supplement or correct the record excerpts is GRANTED.

Baeza-Castillo argues that the factual basis was insufficient to support his conviction. At rearraignment, the Government stated that if it were to proceed to trial, it would show that Baeza-Castillo (1) was a native and citizen of Mexico; (2) was found within the United States on April 15, 2002; (3) had previously been deported; and (4) did not receive permission to reenter. Baeza-Castillo admitted that he committed the acts described by the Government. Under the plain-error standard of review, the facts as set forth by the Government at the guilty-plea hearing were more than adequate to support Baeza-Castillo’s guilty plea to illegal reentry. See United States v. Marek, 238 F.3d 310, 315 (5th Cir.2001) (en banc); United States v. Flores-Peraza, 58 F.3d 164, 166 (5th Cir. 1995).

Baeza-Castillo next argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress his fingerprints and INS A-file because they were the fruits of the illegal arrest. Even assuming that Baeza-Castillo’s arrest was illegal, this argument is foreclosed by our precedent. See United States v. Herrera-Ochoa, 245 F.3d 495, 498 (5th Cir.2001); United States v. Roque-Villanueva, 175 F.3d 345, 346 (5th Cir. 1999); United States v. Pineda-Chinchilla, 712 F.2d 942, 944 (5th Cir.1983).

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Dagoberto Rodriguez-Castorena
417 F. App'x 409 (Fifth Circuit, 2011)
United States v. Hernandez-Reyes
501 F. Supp. 2d 852 (W.D. Texas, 2007)
United States v. Baeza-Castillo
87 F. App'x 381 (Fifth Circuit, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
72 F. App'x 170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-baeza-castillo-ca5-2003.