Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Guillermo MORALES-PITONES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-06-25
Citations: 335 F. App'x 441
Docket Number: No. 06-41374
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Guillermo MORALES-PITONES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 335
Pages: 441–442

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Guillermo MORALES-PITONES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-41374
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 25, 2009.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Thelma O. Garcia, Law Office of Thelma O. Garcia, Harlingen, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Guillermo Morales-Pitones (Morales), appeals his sentence of 82 months of imprisonment for illegally reentering the United States after deportation. As his sole issue, Morales challenges the district court's denial of his request for an offense level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. He notes that, at trial, he contested only the question of his alienage and that he conceded the other elements of the offense of illegal reentry.
Alienage is one of the elements of an offense under § 1326. See United States v. Cardenas-Alvarez, 987 F.2d 1129, 1131-1132 (5th Cir.1993). By challenging at trial whether he was an alien, Morales contested one of the essential factual elements of the offense of illegal reentry and put the Government to its burden of proof as to this element. The district court's determination that Morales was not entitled to an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility was not "without foundation." United States v. Washington, 340 F.3d 222, 227 (5th Cir.2003); see U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, comment, (n.2).
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cm. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.