United States v. Ortega-Alferes

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 22, 2009
No. 08-40449
Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
ENRIQUE ORTEGA-ALFERES, also known as Daniel Villalobos-Alferes
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:07-CR-687-ALL
Before WIENER, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendant-Appellant Enrique Ortega-Alferes (Ortega) appeals his guilty
plea conviction and sentence for being found in the United States unlawfully
after a prior deportation. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The district court applied the
16-level enhancement in U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) and sentenced Ortega to
37 months of imprisonment.
Ortega claims that the district court committed reversible error because,
before accepting his guilty plea, it failed to warn him that deportation was a
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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. 08-40449
possible consequence of conviction. He also contends that the district court erred
by imposing his enhancement based on the court’s determination that his prior
Texas state conviction for robbery by threats qualified as a crime of violence.
The possibility of deportation is a collateral consequence of a guilty plea.
United States v. Santos-Sanchez, 548 F.3d 327, 336 (5th Cir. 2008). A defendant
need not be told of his guilty plea’s collateral consequences in order that the plea
may be deemed voluntary and intelligent. Id. Consequently, there is no merit
to Ortega’s claim that the district court erred by failing to warn him of the
possibility of deportation before accepting his guilty plea.
Robbery is an enumerated crime of violence under § 2L1.2, comment. (n.
1(B)(iii)). In United States v. Santiesteban-Hernandez, 469 F.3d 376, 378-82 (5th
Cir. 2006), we held that the definition of robbery by threats under T EX. P ENAL
C ODE A NN. § 29.02 substantially corresponds to the generic, contemporary
meaning of robbery and thus qualifies as an enumerated offense under § 2L1.2.
Accordingly, there is no merit to Ortega’s assertion that the district court erred
in applying the 16-level enhancement under § 2L1.2 based on his prior robbery
conviction.
AFFIRMED.
2