eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2001-08

United States v. Lazo ( 2001 )


Menu:
 
  •                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-20729
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RONALD IGNACIO LAZO,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-00-CR-233-1
--------------------
August 23, 2001
Before KING, Chief Judge, POLITZ, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ronald Ignacio Lazo appeals his conviction for one count of
illegal reentry after deportation.   He first argues that his
indictment was insufficient because it did not allege that he
committed a voluntary act.   This argument is foreclosed by United
States v. Tovias-Marroquin,
    218 F.3d 455
     (5th Cir.), cert.
denied,
    121 S. Ct. 670
     (2000).   He next contends that his
indictment was insufficient because it did not allege general
intent.   This argument is foreclosed by United States v. Berrios-
Centeno,
    250 F.3d 294
     (5th Cir. 2001).
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-20729
-2-
Lazo also contends that his indictment was insufficient
because it did not allege specific intent.    He concedes that this
argument is foreclosed by United States v. Ortegon-Uvalde,
    179 F.3d 956
    , 959 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
    528 U.S. 979
     (1999).     He
raises the issue only to preserve it for further review.
Lazo’s final contention is that the aggravated-felony
conviction that resulted in his increased sentence under
§ 1326(b)(2) was an element of the offense that should have been
charged in the indictment.    Lazo concedes that this argument is
foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States,
    523 U.S. 224
    (1998).    He nevertheless seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme
Court review in light of the decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey,
    530 U.S. 466
     (2000).
Lazo has not shown any error on the part of the district
court.    Accordingly, the judgment of that court is AFFIRMED.