Opinion ID: 169511
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: u nlawful e ntries

Text: M r. Castorena next argues the district court erred in stating that his 87month sentence was justified, in part, because he had “repeatedly violated the law of this country by entering this country illegally.” Rec. vol. II, at 9 (emphasis added). Although the district court’s statement concerned illegal entries, M r. Castorena premises this challenge on the lack of explicit information in the PSR regarding the removal actions taken by the United States – if any – following three of his four prior convictions. He emphasizes that the PSR, in discussing his criminal history, only provides that he was deported after his 1995 fraud conviction; it does not indicate whether he was removed after his 1988, 1989, and 2003 convictions. Despite the lack of specific information regarding removals, the undisputed facts in the PSR suggest that M r. Castorena, an illegal alien, unlawfully entered the country at least three times: (1) w hen he “first entered the United States in 1982,” PSR ¶ 70; (2) prior to his 1995 fraud conviction as he admitted “return[ing] to M exico” for an unspecified period of time after “resid[ing]in Northridge, California, from 1990 to 1993,” id.; and (3) before his 2003 conviction for illegal reentry following deportation. These facts are more than sufficient to support the district court’s statement that M r. Castorena “repeatedly” -11- entered the country illegally. See 13 Oxford English Dictionary 635 (2d ed. 1989) (repeatedly: “M ore than once, again and again, frequently”). W e therefore conclude the district court comm itted no error and, as above, do not move beyond the first plain error review prong.