is not unconstitutionally vague. See United States v. Meraz-Valeta, 26 F.3d 992 (10th Cir.1994); United States v. Whittaker, 999 F.2d 38, 42 (2d Cir.1993). Ayala also contends that § 1326 is void as applied to him because INS Form I-294 did not specifically warn him that being “found in” the United States after deportation was a violation of § 1326. The argument lacks merit. Form 1-294 specifically states that “by law ... any deported person who within five years returns without permission is guilty of a felony.” It provided an adequate warning that being “found in” the United States constituted a felony. More importantly, even if the warning on Form I-294 was inadequate, the proper inquiry is whether the controlling statute, i.e. § 1326, is vague. See Ullyses-Salazar, 28 F.3d at 936 (<HOLDING>). B. Status Crimes Ayala argues that the “found
holding that vagueness inquiry is limited to whether the terms of the statute itself are vague and that vagueness doctrine does not extend to incorrect information contained on form 1294 holding that the appropriate inquiry under aedpa is not whether a federal court believes a state courts determination  was incorrect but whether that determination was unreasonablea substantially higher threshold holding appeal of termination is limited to information that is part of the record recognizing that the right does not extend to committing perjury holding that the tucker acts waiver does not extend to statutory claims