1 The Honorable Mark W. Be nnett, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________ No. 07-1324

________________

United States of America, *
* Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Northern District of Iowa. Jaime Lee Orozco, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

________________ Submitted: October 16, 2007 Filed: December 6, 2007

________________ Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, GRUENDER and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

________________ PER CURIAM.

Jaime Lee Orozco pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) a nd 924(a)(2). The district court 1 sentenced him to 235 months’ imprisonment. Orozco appeals his sentence. We affirm.2 Orozco initially objected to the determination that these two convictions, entered on the same day, we re two separate convictions under the ACCA. However, he withdrew this objection at sentencing.
-2- On March 24, 2006, Orozco and an accomplice entere d a residence in Sioux City, Iowa, and threatened the occupants with a gun. The police arrived after the accomplice escaped and arrestedOrozco. Orozco was indi cted by a federal grand jury and charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. He later pled guilty to that offense.

At the plea hearing, Oro zco was informed that th e maximum sentence for this offense was ten years’ imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2). Before the sentencing hearing, the presentence inve stigation report (“PSR”) determined that Orozco’s two prior Iowa convictions for felony lascivious acts with a child in violation of Iowa Code § 709.8 constituted violent fe lonies under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924( e). Orozco did not object to the determination that these convictions qualif ied as violent felonies under the ACCA. 2 As noted in the PSR, these two convictions, along with a prior conviction for felony assault, qualified Orozco as an armed career criminal, requiring a statutory minimum sentence of fifteen years’ imprisonment a nd a possible maximum sentence of life. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). Orozco also was classified as an armed career criminal pursuant to § 4B1.4 of the United States Se ntencing Guidelines. As a result, the PSR determined Orozco’s advisory sentencing guidelines range to be 188 to 235 months’ imprisonment.

At the beginning of the sentencing hearing, the district court first asked Orozco’s attorney if she ha d the opportunity to review the PSR with Orozco. After she responded that she and Orozco had re viewed the PSR, the court explained to Orozco that his classification as an ar med career criminal in creased his maximum possible sentence. The court then gave him an opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea. With full knowledge that his previous convictions classified him as an armed3 Even if Orozco had not waived this argum ent, the district court did not plainly err in sentencing him as an armed career criminal because his prior convictions for felony lascivious acts with a child constitute violent felonies under the ACCA and the sentencing guidelines. See United States v. Rodriguez , 979 F.2d 138, 141 (8th Cir.
-3- career criminal and that he faced a longer sentence based on that classification, Orozco chose not to withdraw his guilty plea.

Orozco now argues that the district c ourt plainly erred when it sentenced him as an armed career criminal based on his two prior convictions for felony lascivious acts with a child. See United States v. Pirani , 406 F.3d 543, 549 (8th Cir. 2005) (stating that this court reviews an argumen t not properly preserved for plain error). He contends that the acts between him, then eighteen years old, and a thirteen-year-old girl were not violent feloni es because the girl consen ted and acts between two such teenagers do not pose a serious potential ri sk of physical injury. The Government argues that Orozco waived this argument by maintaining his guilty plea when given an opportunity to withdraw it after learning of his armed career criminal status and the resulting sentencing enhancements.

We agree with the Government th at Orozco waived his argument by maintaining his guilty plea with full knowle dge that he was facing a sentence based on his classification as anarmed career criminal. See United States v. Cook , 447 F.3d 1127, 1128 (8th Cir. 2006) (holding that a defendant waived the right to contest his sentence based on an enhancement when hepled guilty and “explicitly and voluntarily expos[ed] himself to a specific sentence”); see also United States v. Nguyen , 46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1995); United States v. Durham , 963 F.2d 185, 187 (8th Cir. 1992). Before the district court sent enced Orozco, it explained to him that he would face a more severe sentence based on his classification as an armed career criminal and gave him the opportunity to withdraw his gu ilty plea. With th is knowledge, Orozco decided to maintain his guilty plea. Theref ore, he waived his right to appeal his resulting sentence based on his status as an armed career criminal. 31992) (holding that a conviction for a lascivi ous act with a child in violation of Iowa Code § 709.8 was a crime of violence); see also United States v. Eastin , 445 F.3d 1019, 1022 (8th Cir. 2006) (noting that inces tuous intercourse between an adult and a minor child is a violent felony under the ACCA).
-4- Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s sentence.

____________________________