Filed: Sep. 30, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-11508 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JESSER MOISES FIGUEROA-SERRANO, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:98-CR-118-1-A - - - - - - - - - - September 30, 1999 Before REAVLEY, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Jesser Moises Figueroa-Serrano (Figueroa) appeals his conviction following a
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-11508 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JESSER MOISES FIGUEROA-SERRANO, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:98-CR-118-1-A - - - - - - - - - - September 30, 1999 Before REAVLEY, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Jesser Moises Figueroa-Serrano (Figueroa) appeals his conviction following a b..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-11508
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JESSER MOISES FIGUEROA-SERRANO,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:98-CR-118-1-A
- - - - - - - - - -
September 30, 1999
Before REAVLEY, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jesser Moises Figueroa-Serrano (Figueroa) appeals his
conviction following a bench trial on the charge of illegal
reentry into the United States by a removed alien, 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the
applicable case law, and we conclude that the district court did
not err in its judgment of conviction. Because Figueroa is an
alien “previously deported” instead of an alien “previously
denied admission and removed,” his prosecution for illegal
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 98-11508
-2-
reentry was not excepted pursuant to § 1326(a)(2)(B). Figueroa’s
attempt to invoke the doctrine of “entrapment by estoppel” fails
because he does not show that a government official actively
assured him that he could legally return to the United States
after five years without permission of the Attorney General. See
United States v. Spires,
79 F.3d 464, 466 (5th Cir. 1996).
AFFIRMED.