22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T442,ORDER The memorandum disposition filed on May 15, 1991 is hereby designated a per curiam opinion. OPINION Arturo Ramos-Quirarte appeals from his conviction for unlawful re-entry into the United States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . He contends that (a) his possession of an Employment Authorization Card rendered him immune from prosecution for this offense during the effective dates of that card, and (b) the district court erred in declining to allow him to present evidence of his intent to obey the law. Both contentions are facially merit-less. Section 1326 provides in pertinent part: 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (a) (1988). The fact that Ramos obtained Special Agricultural Worker status after his return to the United States is in no way a defense to the charge that his return itself was illegal under section 1326, and Ramos has not cited a single case that suggests otherwise. Further, there is nothing in the statute to suggest that specific intent is an element of the offense. Pena-Cabanillas v. United States, 394 F.2d 785, 788-90 (9th Cir.1968). AFFIRMED.24:T46c,

ORDER

The memorandum disposition filed on May 15, 1991 is hereby designated a per curiam opinion.

OPINION

Arturo Ramos-Quirarte appeals from his conviction for unlawful re-entry into the United States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . He contends that (a) his possession of an Employment Authorization Card rendered him immune from prosecution for this offense during the effective dates of that card, and (b) the district court erred in declining to allow him to present evidence of his intent to obey the law. Both contentions are facially merit-less.

Section 1326 provides in pertinent part:

8 U.S.C. § 1326 (a) (1988). The fact that Ramos obtained Special Agricultural Worker status after his return to the United States is in no way a defense to the charge that his return itself was illegal under section 1326, and Ramos has not cited a single case that suggests otherwise.

Further, there is nothing in the statute to suggest that specific intent is an element of the offense. Pena-Cabanillas v. United States, 394 F.2d 785, 788-90 (9th Cir.1968).

AFFIRMED.