IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-40221
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CRUZ RAMOS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(L-01-CR-838-ALL)
December 3, 2002
Before BARKSDALE, DEMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Cruz Ramos appeals his guilty-plea conviction for transporting
undocumented aliens within the United States in violation of 8
U.S.C. § 1324 & 18 U.S.C. § 2. Ramos contends: the factual basis
was insufficient to support his guilty plea; and the district court
misadvised him regarding the nature of his plea because the
indictment alleged only that the aliens “entered” the United States
and that he furthered such violation. Ramos asserts that the
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
factual basis did not support that he assisted the aliens’ entry
into the United States because their entry had already been
completed at the time he transported them.
FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(f) requires the district court to ensure
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’s 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). Rule 11(c) requires the
district court to advise the defendant of, and to determine that he
understands, among other things, “the nature of the charge to which
the plea is offered[.]” See FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(c)(1). Ramos did
not object to any claimed Rule 11 error. Therefore, his challenges
are reviewed only for plain error. See United States v. Vonn, 122
S. Ct. 1043, 1046 (2002).
Current law does not support Ramos’ reading of the meaning of
the term entry and/or entered as it is used in § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii).
Therefore, the district court did not commit plain error. See
United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162 (5th Cir.), cert.
denied, 513 U.S. 1196 (1995)(en banc); United States v. Hull, 160
F.3d 265, 272 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1136 (1998).
AFFIRMED.
2