Case ID: f-appx_399/html/0024-01.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. Armando SIMENTAL-CARRILLO, also known as Manuel Garcia, also known as Manuel Avilez, also known as Armando Braulio Simental, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-50016
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 26, 2010.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Judy Fulmer Madewell, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Henry Joseph Bem-porad, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before SMITH, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Armando Simental-Carrillo (Simental) appeals the sentence imposed following his conviction of unlawful reentry pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Simental contends that the district court erred by imposing a 16-level crime of violence enhancement based on his prior Texas conviction of indecency by exposure with a child under 17 years of age, a violation of Texas Penal Code § 21.11(a)(2). He argues that the Texas conviction is not within the enumerated offense of sexual abuse of a minor because an offense under § 21.11(a) can be committed against a victim who is 16 years of age. The Government moves for summary affir-mance or, in the alternative, for an extension of time to file a brief.

As Simental concedes, his argument is foreclosed by circuit precedent. See United States v. Ayala, 542 F.3d 494, 495 (5th Cir.2008); United States v. Zavala-Sustaita, 214 F.3d 601, 604 (5th Cir.2000). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED and the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED. The alternative request for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.