procedures and served on the alien in question, in order for a subsequent § 1326 conviction to be lawful. In the present case, Mendez-Casillas contends that a valid warrant was never issued by the INS, nor was one ever served on him prior to his forced departure from the country in 1994. Mendez-Casillas’s argument thus boils down to the claim that because the warrant of deportation was unsigned, the INS violated its own regulations, thereby rendering his arrest a nullity. The government, on the other hand, argues (as the district court found at trial) that a § 1326 violation constitutes a continuing offense, such that an alien who illegally reenters the U.S. is deemed to be in continual violatio 9th Cir.2000) (same); United States v. Ramirez-Valencia, 202 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); cf. United States v. Hernandez, 189 F.3d 785,
holding that because a  1326 violation constitutes a continuing offense venue may lie in any district in which the continuing conduct occurred holding that because a  1326 violation constitutes a continuing offense the iiriraamended sentencing guidelines applied to the case holding that failure to appear for sentencing is a continuing offense because a convicted criminal has a continuing obligation to face sentencing and presents an ongoing threat to the integrity and authority of the court so long as he has not appeared holding that the mere mandatory application of the guidelines  the district courts belief that it was required to impose a guidelines sentence  constitutes error holding that failure to appear is also a continuing offense