IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-20893
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
OSCAR ALEXIS AGUILAR-PEREIRA,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-00-CR-59-1
- - - - - - - - - -
August 23, 2001
Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Oscar Alexis Aguilar-Pereira (Aguilar) appeals his sentence
from his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry after
deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues, for the
first time on appeal, that the district court erred by not
inquiring as to whether “he personally would affirm or deny each
and every previous offense considered by the court to enhance his
sentence[.]” Aguilar’s argument, which primarily relies on cases
dealing with the notice requirements of 21 U.S.C. § 851, is
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-20893
-2-
misguided. The Government did not seek to have Aguilar’s
sentence enhanced under that statute. The procedural
requirements of 21 U.S.C. § 851 do not apply “when sentencing is
conducted under the Sentencing Guidelines and the defendant
receives an increased sentence, which is within a statutory
range[.]” United States v. Marshall, 910 F.2d 1241, 1245 (5th
Cir. 1990). Thus, Aguilar has not shown any error, plain or
otherwise. See United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64
(5th Cir. 1994)(en banc).
Aguilar also contends, for the first time on appeal, that he
“was denied his rights as a non-citizen to consular notification
under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations[.]” Aguilar’s
appeal of this issue has been waived by his unconditional guilty
plea. See United States v. Smallwood, 920 F.2d 1231, 1240 (5th
Cir. 1991). Even if he had not waived his right to appeal this
issue, Aguilar would still not be entitled to a remand. We have
recently rejected the argument that the Vienna Convention confers
a private, judicially-enforceable right of consultation between a
detained foreign national and his consular office. United States
v. Jimenez-Nava, 243 F.3d 192, 195-98 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
121 S. Ct. 2620 (2001).
AFFIRMED.