* P ursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the Court has determ ined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under th e limit ed circumstances set fo rth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED July 17, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 06-20478 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Pl aint iff - Appellee.

VERSUS ANNIEDIABASI DICKSON OBOT, SR., a/k/a Anniediabasi Dickson Obot, a/k/a Anniediabasi Obot, Defendant -Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division

(05-CR-343)

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Anniediabasi Dickson Obot, Sr., (“Obot”), appeals from the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on three counts of immigration violations. Based on our review of the record, his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction on all counts fails. In addition, we reject his argument that the district court erred by summarily denying Obot’s pretrial

mo ti on to di smiss t he illegal reentry charge, which challenged the legality of his deportation. I. Obot, a native of Nigeria, was deported in 2004 and barred from reentering the United2

States. In February 2005, Obot went to the U.S. embassy in Nigeria and applied for a transportation letter to allo w him t o reenter the United States. On his application, Obot claimed th at his resident alien card had been stolen from his vehicle in Nigeria. This was false as Obot’s resident alien card had been taken from him when he was deported from the United States the pri or year. Obot was successful in obtaining the transportation letter, which he used to reenter th e United States. Aft er reentering the United States, Obot attempted to recover his permanent resident alien card that he had surrendered when he was deported. On his application. Obot checked the box to indicate that his old card had been “lost or stolen or destroyed.” When his application was processed, immigration officials discovered that he was disqualified due to his prior deportation. Obot was advised that immigration officials were going to reinstate his prior order of deportation and charge him with several immigration violations. Count One alleges that Obot violated 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a) by uttering and using a transportation letter issued by the American embassy in Nigeria to enter the United States knowing it to have been procured by a false claim and statement. Count Two alleges that he made a material, false statement on Form I-90 Application to Replace Permanent Resident Alien Card, also in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a). Count Three charges Obot with being an alien unlawfully in t he United States after removal after having been convicted of an aggravated felony wit hout having obtained the consent of the Attorney General of the United States or his successor, the Secretary of th e Department of Homeland Security, to reapply for admission into th e United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § § 1326(a) and (b)(2). Obot was convicted by a jury and sentenced, and now appeals.3 II. First, Obot argues that the evidence presented at his jury trial was insufficient to support his convictions. “The jury's verdict will be affirmed if a reasonable trier of fact could conclude from the evidence that the elements of the offense were established beyond a reasonable doubt.” Unit ed States v. Delgado , 256 F.3d 264, 273 (5th Cir. 2001). On Counts One and Two, Obot argues that the government did not prove that the immigration documents referred to in each count were “prescribed by statute or regulation for entry into . . . the United States” under 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a). The record reveals that the government did not identify the statutes and regulations that govern the preparation and use of the transportation letter or the Form I-90. However, several immigration agents testified who described their duties in issuing and examining transportation letters to al iens desiring to enter the United States. It is clear from their testimony th at such letters are required by law before an alien could enter. Immigration agents also testified as to the examination and use of Form I-90. Similarly it is clear from their testimony that the form is a document required by immigration laws and regulations. The government placed sufficient evidence before the jury from which a reasonable juror could easily infer that both the transportation letter and the Form I-90 are documents prescribed by statute or regulation for entry int o th e United States. On Count Three, Obot argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he was not a “national” of the United States and that he did not apply for permission from appropriate authori ties to reappl

y fo r admission into the United States following his 2004 deportation. The court defined the term “national” as one who is a citizen of the United States, or one who though not a ci tizen, owes permanent allegiance to the United States. The evidence supports a4

reasonable juror’s finding that Obot is a national and citizen of Nigeria. His application for cit izenship in which he swore that he was willing to take the full Oath of Allegiance to the United States does not precl

ude a reasonable juror from finding that he did not owe such allegiance at the time o f his o ffense since his application was terminated with his deportation from the country. Obot’s additional argument that the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Obot did not appl

y fo r admission to the United States after his deportation also fails. The government submitted evidence about the contents and maintenance of each alien’s “A-file” in which such an application would have been filed if it had in fact been submitted. The absence of th e record sati sfies t he government’s burden of proof. III. Pri or to tri al, Obot filed a motion to dismiss the illegal reentry charge on the basis that his pri or deportati on was unconstitutional because the immigration judge erroneously denied Obot th e right to apply for discretionary relief from deportation pursuant to § 212(c) of the Im migration and Nationality Act. Obot concedes that this court’s holding in Unit ed States v. Lopez-Ortiz , 313 F.3d 225 (5 th Cir. 2002), precludes relief on his motion to dismiss, but raises the issue to preserve it for further appellate review. IV. For the foregoing reasons, Obot’s conviction is AFFIRMED.5