IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-40250
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SHAWN LAWRENCE TALLMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. L-01-CR-625-1
--------------------
November 8, 2002
Before DAVIS, WIENER and EMILIO GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Shawn Lawrence Tallman (“Tallman”) appeals his guilty plea
conviction for transporting undocumented aliens within the United
States for financial gain in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324 & 18
U.S.C. § 2. Tallman contends that the factual basis was
insufficient to support his guilty plea because the indictment
alleged only that the aliens “entered” the United States and that
he furthered such violation. Tallman argues that the factual
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-40250
-2-
basis did not support that he assisted the illegal aliens’ entry
into the United States because their entry had already been
completed at the time that he transported them.
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(f) requires the
district court to ensure that there is a factual basis for the
plea by comparing “(1) the conduct to which the defendant admits
with (2) the elements of the offense charged in the indictment or
information” to ensure that the defendant understands not only
the nature of the charge but also that his conduct falls within
the charge. United States v. Marek, 238 F.3d 310, 315 (5th Cir.)
(en banc) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 37 (2001).
We review Tallman’s challenge for plain error only. See United
States v. Vonn, 122 S. Ct. 1043, 1046 (2002).
Because current law does not support Tallman’s reading of
the meaning of the term entry and/or entered as it is used in
§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), the district court did not commit plain
error. See United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162(5th Cir.
1994) (en banc); United States v. Hull, 160 F.3d 265, 272 (5th
Cir. 1998). Accordingly, Tallman’s conviction is AFFIRMED.