United States v. Rafael Moreno-Ornellas

669 F. App'x 758
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided October 18, 2016·No. 16-40249 Conference Calendar·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Rafael Moreno-Ornellas raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v. Rodriguez, 711 F.3d 541, 562-63 & n.28 (5th Cir. 2013) (en banc), in which we held that the generic, contemporary definition of sexual abuse of a minor does not require the age of consent to be below 17 years old and does not include an age-differential requirement. He also raises an argument that is foreclosed by United States v. Elizondo-Hernandez, 755 F.3d 779, 781-82 (5th Cir. 2014), which held that the Texas offense of indecency with a child by contact satisfied the generic definition of sexual abuse of a minor. Finally, he raises an argument that is foreclosed by United States v. Teran-Salas, 767 F.3d 453, 458-62 (5th Cir. 2014), in which we determined that the appellant was not entitled to relief based merely on the existence of a theoretical possibility that a defendant could be convicted under Texas Health & Safety Code § 481.112(a) for conduct that would not qualify as a federal drug trafficking offense. Accordingly, the motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47,5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States v. Rafael Moreno-Ornellas, 669 F. App'x 758 (5th Cir. 2016).

669 F. App'x 758 (United States v. Rafael Moreno-Ornellas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Jorge Rodriguez
711 F.3d 541 (Fifth Circuit, 2013)
United States v. Alberto Elizondo-Hernandez
755 F.3d 779 (Fifth Circuit, 2014)
United States v. Rogelio Teran-Salas
767 F.3d 453 (Fifth Circuit, 2014)