Filed: Feb. 16, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-20412 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RAUL ERNESTO QUINTANILLA MENDOZA, also known as Eric Ernesto Quintanilla, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-99-CR-703-1 - February 15, 2001 Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges PER CURIAM:* Raul Ernesto Quintanilla Mendoza appeals his guilty-plea con
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-20412 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RAUL ERNESTO QUINTANILLA MENDOZA, also known as Eric Ernesto Quintanilla, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-99-CR-703-1 - February 15, 2001 Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges PER CURIAM:* Raul Ernesto Quintanilla Mendoza appeals his guilty-plea conv..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-20412
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RAUL ERNESTO QUINTANILLA MENDOZA, also known as
Eric Ernesto Quintanilla,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-99-CR-703-1
--------------------
February 15, 2001
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM:*
Raul Ernesto Quintanilla Mendoza appeals his guilty-plea
conviction for unlawful reentry into the United States following
a prior deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). For the
following reasons, we affirm.
Mendoza’s first argument that his prior felony conviction is
an element of the offense rather than a sentencing factor is
foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States,
523 U.S. 224,
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-20412
-2-
235 (1998). He concedes as much, but he raises the issue to
preserve it for possible Supreme Court review.
His second argument is that the indictment was deficient
because it failed to allege any mens rea. We rejected such an
argument in a case involving a nearly identical indictment. See
United States v. Guzman-Ocampo,
236 F.3d 233, 239 (5th Cir.
2000). For the reasons set forth in that case, we conclude that
the indictment sufficiently apprised Mendoza of the nature of the
charges against him.
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the
district court.
AFFIRMED.