United States v. Baeza-Castillo

87 F. App'x 381

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: February 17, 2004
• Docket: 02-51357
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM. **

Jorge Enrique Baeza-Castillo appeals the revocation of his supervised release following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United States after deportation. He argues that the district court plainly erred in finding that he violated the conditions of his supervised release as the Government failed to prove he was the same person who was placed on supervised release. The district court took judicial notice that Baeza-Castillo pleaded guilty to illegal reentry into the United States following deportation while he was on supervised release and that this was a violation of the terms of his supervised release. The district court did not err in revoking Baeza-Castillo’s supervised release based on its finding that he had violated the terms of his supervised release by committing another offense while on supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3).

Baeza-Castillo argues that the district court erred in allowing the introduction of evidence obtained in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. This argument was raised and rejected in the separate criminal proceeding in which he was charged and convicted of illegal reentry into the United States following deportation (Case No. SA-02-CR-220-EP); this court also rejected the argument on appeal. United States v. Baeza-Castillo, 72 Fed.Appx. 170 (5th Cir.2003). He may not challenge his illegal reentry conviction in this appeal of the revocation of his supervised release.

Baeza-Castillo argues that the district court denied his right to allocution. The record indicates that the district court ad dressed Baeza-Castillo and asked if he had anything to say before he was sentenced; he apologized to the court, stated he was remorseful, and stated that he returned to the United States to be with his wife who has cancer. Therefore, the record reflects that Baeza-Castillo was not denied the right to allocution.

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** Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.