United States v. Aguilar-Enriquez

*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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 01-41259
Consolidated with
No. 01-41266
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ERIC GUADALUPE AGUILAR-ENRIQUEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. B-99-CR-483-1
USDC No. B-01-CR-198-1
October 9, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Eric Guadalupe Aguilar-Enriquez (“Aguilar”) appeals his
conviction for illegally reentering the United States and the
concurrent revocation of his supervised release on a previous
illegal entry conviction. Aguilar contends that, when taking his
guilty plea to the illegal reentry charge, the magistrate judge

-- 1 of 3 --

1 United States v. Vonn, 122 S. Ct. 1043, 1048 (2002).
2 United States v. Vasquez-Bernal, 197 F.3d 169, 171 (5th Cir.
1999) (“Vasquez-Bernal does not argue that he would not have pled
guilty had he been personally informed of the punishment range for
his crime; he merely argues that the court’s error mandates a
2
violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 by failing to inform
him that he could be reincarcerated for one year upon revocation of
his supervised release. Appellant asserts that this error was not
harmless because the aggregate of his prison term and possible
reincarceration for the illegal reentry conviction would be greater
than the statutory maximum term of imprisonment for that charge.
As Aguilar did not object in the district court to the
magistrate judge’s oversight, we review for plain error.1 We find
no reversible error under the plain-error standard. During
Aguilar’s guilty plea hearing on his previous conviction for
illegal entry, the district court advised him that if he violated
the terms of his supervised release, he could be given additional
time in prison. Moreover, Aguilar undoubtedly understood the
consequences of violating his term of supervised release on the
illegal reentry conviction, because, at the same time that he was
pleading guilty to the illegal reentry charge, he was also facing
a revocation of the supervised release term from his previous
illegal entry conviction. Finally, Aguilar does not allege that he
would not have pleaded guilty to the illegal reentry charge had he
been properly informed about the possible consequences of
supervised release.2

-- 2 of 3 --

reversal of his conviction.”).
3
Given these circumstances, we find that the illegal reentry
conviction, revocation of his supervised release on the illegal
entry conviction, and sentences should be AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --