IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-41235
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JUAN LOPEZ-GONZALEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. M-95-CR-188-5
--------------------
May 3, 2002
Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Juan Lopez-Gonzalez appeals the district court’s decision
revoking his supervised release based on a determination that he
attempted to reenter the United States illegally after he had
previously been deported following an aggravated felony
conviction. Lopez-Gonzalez argues that the district court abused
its discretion in finding by a preponderance of the evidence that
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
1
he violated the conditions of his supervised release by attempting
to reenter the United States illegally and by illegally reentering
the United States. He argues that he merely approached the
immigration inspectors to determine whether he could enter the
United States legally. A review of the evidence supports the
district court’s determination by a preponderance of the evidence
that Lopez-Gonzalez attempted to reenter the United States
illegally by presenting a resident alien card that he knew was
invalid. See United States v. Angeles-Mascote, 206 F.3d 529, 531-
32 (5th Cir. 2000); United States v. Cardenas-Alvarez, 987 F.2d
1129, 1132-33 (5th Cir. 1993). Therefore, the district court did
not abuse its discretion in revoking Lopez-Gonzalez’s supervised
release based on this finding. See United States v. Grandlund, 71
F.3d 507, 509 (5th Cir. 1995).
For the first time on appeal, Lopez-Gonzalez argues that the
offense of attempted reentry into the United States is a specific
intent crime and that he did not have specific intent to reenter
the United States. Because he did not raise this argument in the
district court, review is limited to plain error. See Angeles-
Mascote, 206 F.3d at 531-32. We have held that illegal reentry
into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 is a general
intent offense. See United States v. Guzman-Ocampo, 236 F.3d 233,
238-39 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 2600 (2001); see
also United States v. Barrios-Centeno, 250 F.3d 294, 299 (5th
2
Cir.), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 288 (2001). Lopez-Gonzalez has not
shown that the district court’s failure to find that he
specifically intended to attempt to reenter the United States
illegally was clear or obvious error which amounts to plain error.
AFFIRMED.
3