United States v. Rivera-Castaneda

331 F. App'x 337
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided August 18, 2009·No. 08-41071·Unpublished

Opinion

*338 PER CURIAM: *

Celestino Rivera-Castañeda (Rivera) appeals the 70-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to illegal reentry following a previous deportation. He contends that the district court reversibly erred in applying the U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 enhancement to his sentence based upon his prior Texas conviction for indecency with a child-contact, a violation of Texas Penal Code § 21.11(a)(1). He asserts that a violation of § 21.11(a)(1) does not constitute the enumerated offense of sexual abuse of a minor for purposes of the § 2L1;2 enhancement.

As Rivera acknowledges, this court has already addressed the issue of whether a prior Texas conviction for indecency with a child, a violation of § 21.11(a)(1), constitutes sexual abuse of a minor for purposes of § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii). See United States v. Ayala, 542 F.3d 494, 495 (5th Cir.2008), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 129 S.Ct. 1388, 173 L.Ed.2d 639 (2009); United States v. Najera-Najera, 519 F.3d 509, 511-12 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,-U.S.-, 129 S.Ct. 139, 172 L.Ed.2d 105 (2008); United States v. Zavala-Sustaita, 214 F.3d 601, 604 (5th Cir.2000). Because Rivera’s only argument on appeal is foreclosed by this court’s precedent, 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Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.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. Rivera-Castaneda, 331 F. App'x 337 (5th Cir. 2009).

331 F. App'x 337 (United States v. Rivera-Castaneda) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Zavala-Sustaita
214 F.3d 601 (Fifth Circuit, 2000)
United States v. Najera-Najera
519 F.3d 509 (Fifth Circuit, 2008)
United States v. Ayala
542 F.3d 494 (Fifth Circuit, 2008)