Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Senen FIGUEROA-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-05-14
Citations: 97 F. App'x 174
Docket Number: No. 03-50384; D.C. No. CR-03-00808-H
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Senen FIGUEROA-LOPEZ, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 97
Pages: 174–174

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Senen FIGUEROA-LOPEZ, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 03-50384.
D.C. No. CR-03-00808-H.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 12, 2004.
Decided May 14, 2004.
Mark R. Rehe, Shanna L. Dougherty, USSD — Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Michelle Villasenor-Grant, Tracy B. Gatlin, Federal Public Defender, FDCA— Federal Defender’s of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before BROWNING, RYMER, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Senen Figueroa-Lopez appeals his conviction, pursuant to a guilty plea, for being a deported alien found in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We affirm.
I
The government argues that we should dismiss Figueroa-Lopez's appeal under the doctrines of invited error and judicial admissions. However, there is no basis in the record for precluding consideration of the merits. See Am. Title Ins. Co. v. Lacelaw Corp., 861 F.2d 224, 226 (9th Cir.1988); United States v. Perez, 116 F.3d 840, 845 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc).
II
The Department of Homeland Security's Reorganization Plan was not effective until after Figueroa-Lopez's illegal reentry. 6 U.S.C. § 542; see also Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 848 n. 1 (9th Cir.2003) (recognizing effective date of Plan). Consequently, the indictment was not deficient and there was nothing wrong with the plea colloquy.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.