findings in the sentencing context are reviewed for clear error). The district court also clearly erred by finding that Eretza-Flores committed the assault with intent to commit another felony. The crimes of illegal re-entry and illegally being “found in” the United States were complete before the assault occurred. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a); United States v. Vela-Robles, 397 F.3d 786, 788 (9th Cir.2005); United States v. Parga-Rosas, 238 F.3d 1209, 1213 (9th Cir.2001). The alleged crime of illegally bringing aliens to the United States was also complete before the assault occurred because EretzaFlores had terminated the act of transportation when the vehicle crashed and the group scattered. See 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a); United States v. Lopez, 484 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). Because Eretza-Flores did not act with intent
holding that the commandant of the united states disciplinary barracks and the united states are identical parties holding that the crime of bringing aliens to the united states is complete when the initial transporter who brings the aliens to the united states ceases to transport them holding that an alien parent may not establish a derivative claim for asylum by pointing to potential hardship to the aliens united states citizen child in the event of the aliens deportation holding that the plaintiff must demonstrate that defendants contacts with the united states as a whole support the exercise of jurisdiction consistent with the constitution and laws of the united states holding that zadvydas applies to inadmissible aliens who have illegally entered the united states