United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                   ___________

                                   No. 02-3369
                                   ___________

United States of America,               *
                                        *
            Appellee,                   *
                                        * Appeal from the United States
      v.                                * District Court for the
                                        * Northern District of Iowa.
Francisco Perez-Alejo,                  *    [UNPUBLISHED]
                                        *
            Appellant.                  *
                                   ___________

                         Submitted: February 13, 2003

                              Filed: February 21, 2003
                                   ___________

Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.
                        ___________

PER CURIAM.

       Francisco Perez-Alejo pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation, in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and possession of a firearm by an illegal alien, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5). The district court1 sentenced him to 41 months
imprisonment and 2 years supervised release on both counts, to be served
concurrently. On appeal, Perez-Alejo argues that the district court plainly erred in



      1
      The Honorable Donald E. O’Brien, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Iowa.
failing to group the two offenses under U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2(a), because they involved
the same victim (society at large) and the same transaction.

       We find no plain error. See United States v. Scott, 

, 1108 (8th
Cir. 2001) (standard of review). The two offenses address different societal interests.
Thus, they cannot be grouped. See U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2, comment. (n.2) (where victim
is societal interest that has been harmed, counts are grouped together only where
societal interests are closely related); United States v. Barron-Rivera, 

,
554-55 (9th Cir. 1991) (§ 922(g) protects society against those deemed unqualified
to possess firearms, while § 1326 is designed to enforce immigration laws); see also
United States v. Herrera, 

, 353 (6th Cir. 2001) (district court properly
did not group illegal-reentry and firearm offenses because purposes behind laws are
dissimilar); United States v. Salgado-Ocampo, 

, 328 (7th Cir. 1998)
(same); United States v. Baeza-Suchil, 

, 900 (10th Cir. 1995) (same).

      The judgment is affirmed.

      A true copy.

             Attest:

                     CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.




                                          -2-