IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-40812
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JESUS HERNANDEZ-PEREZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. M-98-CR-103-1
April 13, 1999
Before JOHNSON, DUHE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jesus Hernandez-Perez (“Hernandez”) appeals his sentence imposed
by the district court pursuant to his guilty plea conviction for
entering the United States without the Attorney General’s consent after
previously having been convicted and deported. Hernandez contends that
the court’s imposition of a sixteen level increase to his base offense
level under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) of the Sentencing Guidelines was based on
an unconstitutionally vague definition of “aggravated felony.”
Although Hernandez made a written objection to the probation
officer’s recommendation for the sixteen level increase, he withdrew his
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the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.
objection at the sentencing hearing. The withdrawl of an objection
constitutes the waiver of that objection by the defendant. See United
States v. Musquiz, 45 F.3d 927, 931 (5th Cir. 1995). Because “waived
errors are entirely unreviewable,” Hernandez has effectively eliminated
his only claim on appeal. Id.
Even if Hernandez had not waived his claim of unconstitutional
vagueness, however, we would review it only for plain error as he did
not raise the issue at his sentencing hearing. See United States v.
Spires, 79 F.3d 464, 465-66 (5th Cir. 1996). Under this standard, we
are not able to conclude that Hernandez has shown that a clear or
obvious error affected his substantial rights. See United States v.
Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-63 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
2