Court Opinion

ID: 24921
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 08:28:45+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:37.607826
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
                      ____________________

                           No. 00-41296
                         Summary Calendar
                      ____________________

                    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee,

                              versus

                   ALEJANDRO CRISANTE-SALAZAR,

                                                Defendant-Appellant.
____________________________________________________________

          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                        (L-00-CR-688-ALL)
____________________________________________________________
                          July 24, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Alejandro Crisante-Salazar appeals his guilty–plea conviction

and sentence, arising out of his having been found in the United

States after having been “denied admission, excluded, deported, or

removed” in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

     Crisante contends his indictment was unconstitutionally vague

because it failed to charge him with any mens rea.   This contention

was not raised in district court; therefore, it is reviewed under

the standard of “maximum liberality”.    United States v. Guzman-

     *
      Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
Ocampo, 236 F.3d 233, 236 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied,                   S. Ct.

   , 2001 WL 321598 (U.S. 29 June 2001, No. 00-9174).                     Guzman-

Ocampo deemed sufficient an indictment that contained a charge

nearly identical to that in Crisante’s indictment.                    Id. at 239;

see also United States v. Berrios-Centeno, 250 F.3d 294, 299-300

(5th      Cir.    2001)     (upholding           similar    indictment      under

de novo standard).

       Crisante also claims his prior conviction for transporting

aliens    did    not   constitute    an       “aggravated   felony”    conviction

warranting a 16-level increase in his base offense level under

U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A).          As Crisante concedes, this court has

already    determined      that   transporting        aliens   constitutes     an

aggravated felony.        See United States v. Monjaras-Castaneda, 190

F.3d 326, 331 (5th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1194 (2000).

Crisante seeks only to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review.

                                                                  AFFIRMED

                                          2