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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-40217

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

DORA OLGA CANTU CHAPA,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:08-CR-1591-1

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Dora Olga Cantu Chapa appeals her guilty plea conviction for transporting

an undocumented alien for private financial gain by means of a motor vehicle,

in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324 and 18 U.S.C. § 2. She first argues that her guilty

plea was involuntary and unknowing because her counsel provided ineffective

assistance by failing to advise her that it was a “foregone conclusion” that she

would be deported if she pleaded guilty. Cantu Chapa does not allege that

counsel affirmatively misrepresented the deportation consequences of her guilty

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 23, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 09-40217

2

plea; she alleges only that counsel failed to research the deportation

consequences of her plea and to warn her that her removal was a “virtual

certainty.” She contends that the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant

Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) has rendered deportation a virtual certainty

in some cases, such as her case, and that deportation should be deemed in such

cases to be a direct consequence of pleading guilty. Cantu Chapa alternatively

requests adoption of a new rule providing that a defendant’s guilty plea is

unknowing where the defendant is unaware that deportation is a virtually

certain consequence of pleading guilty.

These arguments are foreclosed by Santos-Sanchez v. United States, 548

F.3d 327, 333-36 (5th Cir. 2008), petition for cert. filed (Apr. 15, 2009) (No.

08-9888). “Absent an en banc or intervening Supreme Court decision, one panel

of this court may not overrule a prior panel’s decision.” United States v.

Rodriguez-Jaimes, 481 F.3d 283, 288 (5th Cir. 2007). Because this court is

bound by its precedent absent an intervening Supreme Court case or a

subsequent en banc decision, the grant of certiorari in Padilla v. Kentucky, 129

S. Ct. 1317 (2009), has no effect on the disposition of this matter. See In re

Brown, 457 F.3d 392, 395 n.1 (5th Cir. 2006). Furthermore, Cantu Chapa was

informed by the magistrate judge (MJ) at rearraignment that Cantu Chapa

“more likely” would be deported back to Mexico.

Cantu Chapa also contends that the MJ and district court committed

reversible error by failing to advise her of (1) her right to be represented by

counsel, appointed if necessary, at trial and every other stage of the proceedings,

see FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(b)(1)(D), and (2) her right to be protected from compelled

self-incrimination, see FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(b)(1)(E). Plain error review applies to

this issue. See United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 59 (2002). Cantu Chapa has

not shown, as required by United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 83

(2004), that these errors affected her substantial rights.
No. 09-40217

3

* * *

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.