IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                           FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                           _____________________

                                No. 99-40640
                              Summary Calendar
                           _____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                         Plaintiff-Appellee,

                                    versus

ALLEN JIOMAR MEJIA-PORTILLO,
also known as Allen Jiomar
Medina-Fuentes, also known as
Cesar Medina-Fuentes,

                                             Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the United States District Court for the
                    Southern District of Texas
                       USDC No. B-99-CR-24-1
_________________________________________________________________

                                August 7, 2000

Before JOLLY, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Allen     Jiomar   Mejia-Portillo     appeals     the   district    court’s

sentence   following      his   guilty   plea    to   illegal    reentry   after

deportation.      Mejia    argues   that   the    district      court   erred   in

increasing his sentence by 16 levels because the PSR does not show

that his prior conviction was a felony under state law.                  Because



     *
      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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
Mejia did not object to this increase in district court, review is

for plain error only.

     Such error is not demonstrated by the record. The record does

not reflect whether Mejia’s second crack-related offense was a

felony or misdemeanor, and it could well have fallen into either

classification. Because this issue is unclear, there is no “clear”

or “obvious” error.   United States v. Calverley, 

, 162-

64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc).    Consequently, the judgment of the

district court is

                                                A F F I R M E D.




                                 2