IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 96-10998
Summary Calendar
_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JUAN SERRANO,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:96-CR-64-T
_________________________________________________________________
May 6, 1997
Before KING, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Juan Serrano appeals his jury conviction for reentry into the
United States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)
and (b)(2). Serrano argues that the district court erred in
denying his motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that his
prior deportation violated his due process rights. Serrano has not
shown that the district court erred in denying his motion to
dismiss the indictment. See United States v. Encarnacion-Galvez,
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4.
964 F.2d 402, 409 (5th Cir. 1992); United States v. Palacios-
Martinez, 845 F.2d 89, 91 (5th Cir. 1988).
Serrano argues for the first time on appeal that the
government withheld the tape of the prior deportation hearing in
violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Review of this
issue is limited to plain error. United States v. Calverley, 37
F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (citing United States v.
Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 730-36 (1993)). Serrano has not shown that
the government withheld specific exculpatory information of which
he was not aware in violation of Brady. United States v. Ramirez,
810 F.2d 1338, 1343 (5th cir. 1987).
Serrano argues that the district court erred in denying his
motion to suppress certain postarrest statements that he made to
Immigration and Naturalization Service Agent Thomas Shock. The
district court did not err in denying Serrano’s motion to suppress
his statements. See United States v. Chapa-Garza, 62 F.3d 118, 121
(5th Cir. 1995); United States v. Carpenter, 963 F.2d 736, 739 (5th
Cir. 1992).
Serrano argues that the district court abused its discretion
in refusing to give a jury instruction on a lesser included
offense. Serrano has not shown that the district court abused its
discretion in refusing to give the requested jury instruction. See
United States v. Deisch, 20 F.3d 139, 142 (5th Cir. 1994).
-2-
A F F I R M E D.
-3-