Filed: Jan. 12, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-40337 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus LORENZO PEREZ-DE ANGEL, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. L-98-CR-788-1 - January 4, 2000 Before DAVIS, DUHÉ and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:1 Defendant-Appellant Lorenzo Perez-De Angel (Perez) appeals his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation pursu
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-40337 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus LORENZO PEREZ-DE ANGEL, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. L-98-CR-788-1 - January 4, 2000 Before DAVIS, DUHÉ and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:1 Defendant-Appellant Lorenzo Perez-De Angel (Perez) appeals his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation pursua..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-40337
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LORENZO PEREZ-DE ANGEL,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. L-98-CR-788-1
--------------------
January 4, 2000
Before DAVIS, DUHÉ and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Defendant-Appellant Lorenzo Perez-De Angel (Perez) appeals his
guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). Perez alleges his
underlying deportation proceeding violated his Fifth Amendment
right to due process.
We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties.
Based upon United States v. Benitez-Villafuerte,
186 F.3d 651 (5th
Cir. 1999), a decision which stands on all fours with this case, we
conclude that Perez’s original deportation proceeding did not
violate due process. Further, Perez has failed to show that he was
prejudiced by any of the alleged deficiencies in the § 1228
proceeding.
Id. at 658-59.
AFFIRMED.
1
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.