# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**_____________** No. 22
- 50357 **consolidated with** No. 22
- 50363 Summary Calendar

**_____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff

— Appellee **,** versus **Oscar Esquivel**
**- Ruiz,**  Defendant

— Appellant **.**

**______________________________** Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC Nos. 4:21
- CR
- 975 -1, 4:21
- CR
- 1081 -1

**______________________________** Before **Jones, Haynes,** and **Oldham,** Circuit Judges **. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** Oscar Esquivel -Ruiz appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence for illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1), along with the revocation of the term of supervised release he was serving for a prior illegal reentry offense . He has not briefed the validity of

**_____________________** * This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir . R.**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 18, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-50357 Document: 00516755226 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/18/2023No. 22 - 50357 c/w No. 22
- 50363

2 the revocation of his supervised release or his revocation sentence and has, therefore, abandoned any challenge to them. See United States v. Reagan , 596 F.3d 251, 254
- 55 (5th Cir. 2010). For the first time on appeal, Esquivel
- Ruiz contends that the dist rict court erred by enhancing his sentence under § 1326(b)(1) because the indictment and factual basis for his guilty plea only established, and he only admitted to , a deportation that preceded his three prior felony reentry convictions. As the parties agree, we review this unpreserved claim for plain error only. See United States v. Velasquez
- Torrez , 609 F.3d 743, 746 (5th Cir. 2010) ; see also Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). Generally, the statutory maximum term of im prisonment for an illegal reentry offense is two years. § 1326(a). However, the statutory maximum for an offense i s increased to 10 years if the defendant’s “removal was subsequent to a conviction for . . . a felony (other than an aggravated felony).” § 1326(b)(1). T he fact that the defendant was removed or deported after the predicate felony conviction must be either proven beyond a reasonable doubt or admitted by the defendant . See Velasquez
- Torrez , 609 F.3d at 746 ; see also United States v. Rojas
- Lu na , 522 F.3d 502, 506
- 07 (5th Cir. 2008) (citing Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000) ) . A ccording to the presentence report (PSR), immigration records ( which were provided to the defense as discovery ) revealed that Esquivel
Ruiz was deported on three separate occasion s after serving sentences for each of his prior felony reentry convictions . At sentencing, Esquivel
- Ruiz stated that he had reviewed the PSR and, through counsel , affirmed that he had no corrections to the PSR. In light of these circumstances, it is at least subject to reasonable dispute whether Esquivel
- Ruiz admitted that he was deported after a felony conviction ; thus, the district court did not commit a clear or obvious error by applying an enhanced statutory maximum . Case: 22-50357 Document: 00516755226 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/18/2023No. 22 - 50357 c/w No. 22
- 50363

3 See Puckett , 556 U.S. at 135 ; Velasquez
- Torrez , 609 F.3d at 746
- 48 ; United States v. Ramirez , 557 F.3d 200, 204
- 05 (5th Cir. 2009) . Moreover, any error did not seriously affect the fairness, integrity , or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. See Ramirez , 557 F.3d at 205 ; see also Puckett , 556 U.S. at 135 ; United States v. Cotton , 535 U.S. 625, 633
- 34 (2002) . **AFFIRMED .**  Case: 22-50357 Document: 00516755226 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/18/2023