Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-16-40249/USCOURTS-ca5-16-40249-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rafael Moreno-Ornellas
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-40249

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RAFAEL MORENO-ORNELLAS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:14-CR-1714-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

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 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 18, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-40249 Document: 00513722248 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/18/2016
No. 16-40249

2

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.

 Case: 16-40249 Document: 00513722248 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/18/2016