United States v. Baeza-Castillo , 72 F. App'x 170 ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 18, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-51352
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JORGE ENRIQUE BAEZA-CASTILLO, also known as
Jorge Enrique Lopez, also known as
Jorge Lopez-Castillo,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. SA-02-CR-220-ALL-EP
--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jorge Enrique Baeza-Castillo appeals his conditional guilty-
plea conviction for illegal reentry following deportation. As an
initial matter, Baeza-Castillo’s motion to supplement or correct
the record excerpts is GRANTED.
Baeza-Castillo argues that the factual basis was
insufficient to support his conviction. At rearraignment, the
Government stated that if it were to proceed to trial, it would
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-51352
-2-
show that Baeza-Castillo (1) was a native and citizen of Mexico;
(2) was found within the United States on April 15, 2002; (3) had
previously been deported; and (4) did not receive permission to
reenter. Baeza-Castillo admitted that he committed the acts
described by the Government. Under the plain-error standard of
review, the facts as set forth by the Government at the guilty-
plea hearing were more than adequate to support Baeza-Castillo’s
guilty plea to illegal reentry. See United States v. Marek, 238
F.3d 310, 315 (5th Cir. 2001) (en banc); United States v.
Flores-Peraza, 58 F.3d 164, 166 (5th Cir. 1995).
Baeza-Castillo next argues that the district court erred in
denying his motion to suppress his fingerprints and INS A-file
because they were the fruits of the illegal arrest. Even
assuming that Baeza-Castillo’s arrest was illegal, this argument
is foreclosed by our precedent. See United States v. Herrera-
Ochoa, 245 F.3d 495, 498 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v. Roque-
Villanueva, 175 F.3d 345, 346 (5th Cir. 1999); United States v.
Pineda-Chinchilla, 712 F.2d 942, 944 (5th Cir. 1983).
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district
court is AFFIRMED.
MOTION GRANTED; AFFIRMED.