Portillo-Mendoza

United States v. Portillo-Mendoza

Good Law
25 F. App'x 543
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 17, 2001No. 00-10407. D.C. No. CR-00-00215-SMMCalifornia464 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Appellant Mario Portillo-Mendoza appeals his conviction for illegal reentry after *544 being previously deported or removed pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (a). The facts of this case are set forth in the concurrently published opinion in United States v. Portillo-Mendoza, 2001 WL 1631857 (9th Cir. 2001), in which we remanded the case for resentencing. Here we consider the other challenges Portillo-Mendoza raises to his conviction. None are meritorious.

Section 1326(a)(2) attaches penalties to any previously deported alien who “enters, attempts to enter, or is at any time found in, the United States.” Portillo-Mendoza was charged with entering, attempting to enter, and being found in the United States. He maintains that this indictment was duplicitous. An indictment may charge conjunctively actions that are separate ways of committing the same crime and that a statute describes in the disjunctive. See United States v. Urrutia, 897 F.2d 430, 432 (9th Cir.1990); United States v. Hobson, 519 F.2d 765, 773 (9th Cir.1975). The indictment was not duplicitous.

Section 1326 applies to aliens who have “been denied admission, excluded, deported, or removed or [have] departed…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.