United States v. Lopez-Gonzalez

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: May 6, 2002
• Docket: 01-41235
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-41235 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN LOPEZ-GONZALEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-95-CR-188-5 -------------------- May 3, 2002

Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Lopez-Gonzalez appeals the district court’s decision

revoking his supervised release based on a determination that he

attempted to reenter the United States illegally after he had

previously been deported following an aggravated felony

conviction. Lopez-Gonzalez argues that the district court abused

its discretion in finding by a preponderance of the evidence that

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

1 he violated the conditions of his supervised release by attempting

to reenter the United States illegally and by illegally reentering

the United States. He argues that he merely approached the

immigration inspectors to determine whether he could enter the

United States legally. A review of the evidence supports the

district court’s determination by a preponderance of the evidence

that Lopez-Gonzalez attempted to reenter the United States

illegally by presenting a resident alien card that he knew was

invalid. See United States v. Angeles-Mascote, 206 F.3d 529, 531-

32 (5th Cir. 2000); United States v. Cardenas-Alvarez, 987 F.2d

1129, 1132-33 (5th Cir. 1993). Therefore, the district court did

not abuse its discretion in revoking Lopez-Gonzalez’s supervised

release based on this finding. See United States v. Grandlund, 71

F.3d 507, 509 (5th Cir. 1995).

For the first time on appeal, Lopez-Gonzalez argues that the

offense of attempted reentry into the United States is a specific

intent crime and that he did not have specific intent to reenter

the United States. Because he did not raise this argument in the

district court, review is limited to plain error. See Angeles-

Mascote, 206 F.3d at 531-32. We have held that illegal reentry

into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 is a general

intent offense. See United States v. Guzman-Ocampo, 236 F.3d 233,

238-39 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 2600 (2001); see

also United States v. Barrios-Centeno, 250 F.3d 294, 299 (5th

2 Cir.), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 288 (2001). Lopez-Gonzalez has not

shown that the district court’s failure to find that he

specifically intended to attempt to reenter the United States

illegally was clear or obvious error which amounts to plain error.

AFFIRMED.