With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". charged. Id. III. Mendez-Casillas argues that the pre-IIRIRA version of § 1326 should apply to his case, given that both parties stipulated at trial that he illegally reentered the U.S. prior to the enactment date of IIRIRA. The pre-IIRIRA version of § 1326(a) required a defendant to have been previously “arrested and deported” in order to be found guilty of the crime of illegal reentry after deportation. We have previously endorsed the view that “arrested” and “deported” constitute two distinct elements of a pre-IIRIRA § 1326 offense. See United States v. Bahena-Cardenas, 70 F.3d 1071, 1073 (9th Cir.1995). In Bahena-Cardenas, we held that the separate “arrest” element required a warrant of deportation to have been issued by the INS in conformity with its reg 89-90 (9th Cir. 1999) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Pacheco-Medina, 212

A: holding that application of the privilege is not limited to persons in custody or charged with a crime it may also be asserted by a suspect who is questioned during the investigation of a crime
B: holding that the crime of being found in the us continues until the ins discovers the defendant but that such discovery also completes the crime and thereby provides a limitation on where venue may lie for purposes of criminal prosecution
C: holding that counsel did not admit the defendant was guilty of a crime when counsel noted that if the evidence established the commission of any crime that crime was voluntary manslaughter not murder
D: holding that a district court may not rely on a charging document without first establishing that the crime charged was the same crime for which the defendant was convicted
B.