UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 00-41296 Summary Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ALEJANDRO CRISANTE-SALAZAR, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (L-00-CR-688-ALL) ____________________________________________________________ July 24, 2001 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:* Alejandro Crisante-Salazar appeals his guilty–plea conviction and sentence, arising out of his having been found in the United States after having been “denied admission, excluded, deported, or removed” in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

Crisante contends his indictment was unconstitutionally vague because it failed to charge him with any mens rea. This contention was not raised in district court; therefore, it is reviewed under the standard of “maximum liberality”. United States v. Guzman-

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

Ocampo, 236 F.3d 233, 236 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, S. Ct. , 2001 WL 321598 (U.S. 29 June 2001, No. 00-9174). Guzman- Ocampo deemed sufficient an indictment that contained a charge nearly identical to that in Crisante’s indictment. Id. at 239; see also United States v. Berrios-Centeno, 250 F.3d 294, 299-300 (5th Cir. 2001) (upholding similar indictment under de novo standard).

Crisante also claims his prior conviction for transporting aliens did not constitute an “aggravated felony” conviction warranting a 16-level increase in his base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A). As Crisante concedes, this court has already determined that transporting aliens constitutes an aggravated felony. See United States v. Monjaras-Castaneda, 190 F.3d 326, 331 (5th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1194 (2000).

Crisante seeks only to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review.

AFFIRMED