than the question of when the statute of limitations begins to run — indicates that it did not necessarily consider Lopez-Flores to be directly controlling as to the issue at hand. Are, 498 F.3d at 464. 5 .The Second and Third Circuits explicitly stated that § 1326 is not a continuing offense. In Santana-Castellano, the Fifth Circuit articulated a position that may be considered either a middle ground or a clarification of the holdings in Rivera-Ventura and DiSantillo. It stated that "[w]here a deported alien enters the United States and remains here with the knowledge that his entry is illegal, his remaining here until he is ‘found’ is a continuing offense.” Santana-Castellano, 74 F.3d at 598 (emphasis added); see also United States v. Gunera, 479 F.3d 373, 376-77 (5th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). The practical effect of Santana-Castellano is
recognizing burdixdana represents the majority view but rejecting its interpretation of 18 usc  3282 holding that the phrase resident alien means an alien lawfully residing in the united states holding that district courts acceptance of a defendants guilty plea to bringing an unlawful alien into the united states under 8 usc  1324alai was plain error in part because the defendant did not accompany or arrange to have a person accompany the alien across the border and we have found no case where a defendant has been convicted under clause i of this statute for bringing an alien into the united states except where the defendant accompanied or arranged to have the alien accompanied as in a smuggling operation across the border recognizing objective standard applicable under 42 usc  1983 and suits under united states constitution recognizing that the holding of santanacastellano continues to be the standard by which we determine whether an alien has been found in the united states for purposes of the applicable fiveyear statute of limitations under 18 usc  3282