Case ID: f-appx_519/html/0316-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Enrique RAMIREZ-LOARCA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-40570
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    May 15, 2013.
    Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Soko-low, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before SMITH, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Enrique Ramirez-Loarca appeals the forty-six-month sentence imposed following his conviction of being present unlawfully in the United States after deportation. He contends that the district court erred by imposing a sixteen-level enhancement under United States Sentencing Guidelines § 2L1.2 based on his conviction of statutory rape under Georgia Code Annotated § 16-6-3(a) (2005). He particularly argues that his offense does not satisfy the “generic, contemporary meaning” of the enumerated offenses of “statutory rape” or “sexual abuse of a minor” because the statute of conviction prescribes a three-year age differential between the victim and the defendant, rather than four years.

The sole argument raised by Ramirez-Loarca is foreclosed by United, States v. Rodriguez, 711 F.3d 541 (5th Cir.2013) (en banc). There, we applied a “plain-meaning” approach to determine the “generic, contemporary meaning” of “statutory rape” and “sexual abuse of a minor” and concluded that the generic definitions of those offense categories do not include any specific age differential. Id. at 561-62 & n. 28. We expressly rejected the claim that the statute at issue— § 21.11(a)(1) of the Texas Penal Code — did not satisfy the “generic, contemporary meaning” of “sexual abuse of a minor” because the statute prescribed a three-year instead of a four-year age differential between the victim and the defendant. Id. at 562 n. 28.

In light of Rodriguez, Ramirez-Loarea has not shown that it was error for the district court to impose a sixteen-level enhancement under § 2L1.2 based on his conviction of statutory rape under § 16 — 6— 3(a). Thus, the judgment of sentence 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.