The Honorable Warren K. Ur bom, United States District Judge for the District 1 of Nebraska. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-3157

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Salvador Maravilla Andrade, also * District of Nebraska. known as Luis M. Godoy, also known * as Salvador Andrade, also known as * [UNPUBLISHED] Luis Andrade-Godinez, * * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: June 6, 1997 Filed: June 13, 1997

___________ Before BEAM, MAGILL, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Salvador Maravilla Andrade pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the Unite d States af ter being previously arrested and deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326

. At sentencing, the district court enhanced Andrade's base offense level by sixtee n 1 levels under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2L1.2(b)(2) (1995) becaus e Andrade had been deported following an "aggravated felony conviction," namely, an Oregon felony conviction for delivering cocaine. The court ultimately sentenced-2-

Andrade to 46 months imprisonment and two years supervised release, and he appeals his conviction and sentence. After the appeal was filed, counsel submitted a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We granted Andrade leave to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so. We affirm.

Counsel first argues that the government should be estopped from claiming i t "found" Andrade in the United States after he was deported--as alleged in th e indictment--because Andrade sought permission to remain in the United States after he ill egally reentered the country. Assuming this claim survived Andrade’s guilty plea , see United States v. Vaughan , 13 F.3d 1186, 1187-88 (8t h Cir.), cert. denied , 511 U.S. 1094 (1994), his alleged effort to legalize his presence here cannot estop th e government from prosecuting him for illegally reentering the country in the first place,
see United States v. Agubata , 60 F.3d 1081, 1083 (4th Cir. 1995) (discussing equitable estoppel), cert. denied , 116 S. Ct. 929 (1996). We reject Andrade's additiona l sugg estion that his incarceration within this country's borders at the time he wa s discovered estops t

he government from claiming it "found" him. See United States v. Ortiz-Villegas , 49 F.3d 1435, 1437 (9th Cir.), cert. denied , 116 S. Ct. 134 (1995).
Next, c ounsel argues that Andrade's 46-month sentence violates fundamenta l fairness and due process, because it exceeds the potential penalty for illegal reentry that was noted on the Immigration and Naturalization Service Form I-2 94 Andrade received when he was previously deported. This argument also fails. See United States v

. Denis-LaMarchez , 64 F.3d 597, 598 (11th Cir . 1995) (per curiam) (because INS Form I-294 is not criminal statute, sentencing in excess of two-year maximum erroneously stated on form does not violate due process or fundamental unfairness), cert. denied , 116 S. Ct. 799 (1996).-3-

Final ly, counsel challenges the aggravated-felony enhancement Andrad e re ceived, noting that Andrade now insists his Oregon conviction was for mer e possession of a controlled substance. As Andrade failed to raise this challenge below, we review it only for plain error, see United States v. Fritsch , 891 F.2d 667, 668 (8th Cir. 1989), and find none, see U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2L1.2, comment. (n.7) (1995). Upon reviewing the record in acco rdance with Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.
A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.