United States v. Padilla-Venegas

*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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-20098
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
PEDRO PADILLA-VENEGAS,
Defendant-Appellant.
___________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-00-CR-530-ALL
___________________________________________
August 7, 2001
Before POLITZ, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Pedro Padilla-Venegas appeals his conviction and sentence for being in the
United States without permission of the Attorney General after his deportation
following his conviction of a felony, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Padilla
challenges the sufficiency of his indictment because it did not allege that he acted
with intent to commit the offense. Padilla’s contention is foreclosed by our holding

-- 1 of 2 --

1250 F.3d 294 (5th Cir. 2001),
2United States v. Short, 181 F.3d 620 (5th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1091 (2000);
United States v. Mathena, 23 F.3d 87 (5th Cir. 1994).
2
in United States v. Berrios-Centeno1 that an indictment charging a violation of §
1326 “fairly convey[s] that [the defendant’s] presence was a voluntary act from the
allegations that he was deported, removed, and subsequently present without
consent of the Attorney General.” Absent a ruling by the Supeme Court or this
court en banc, that precedent is binding and dispositive herein.2
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --