Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 10131 Su m m ar y Cal endar
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. P A B L O M A R T IN R O S A L E S -M A R T IN E Z , a ls o k n o w n a s M a r tin P a b lo M art i n ez, D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he N or t her n D i st r i c tof Texas U SDC N o . 3 : 0 7

- CR- 2 5 4

- ALL

B ef ore H IG G IN B O T H A M , C L E M E N T an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * Pabl o M ar t i n R os al es - M ar t i nez pl eade d gui l t y t o v i ol at i ng 8 U
. S. C
. § 1326 by r ee nt er i ng t he U ni t ed St at es af t erhavi ng bee n depor t ed
. F i n d i ng t hat M art i n ez ha d a p ri or Tex as convi ct i on f or i n dec e n cy w i t h a m i n or, t h e di st ri ct
c o u r te n h a n c e d h i s b a s e o f fe n s e l e v e lo n a c c o u n to f a f e l o n y c o n v i c t i o n o f

a c r i me o f v i o l e nc e a nd s e nt e nc e d hi m t o 3 6 m o nt hs i n pr i s o n, w h i ch w as b e l o w t he United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 20, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 10131

See U. S. S. G. § 2 L 1 .2 (b)( 1 )( A )(ii). 1 See Uni ted States v. Mondragon- Santi ago , 56 4 F.3 d 357 , 361 (5thC ir. 2 009), petition 2 fo r ce rt
. file d (J u n e 2 4 , 2 0 0 9) (No. 0 8 -1 1 0 9 9). 3 8 6U .S
. 7 3 8( 1 9 6 7). 3 See Sh epard v. Un ited States , 5 4 4U .S
. 1 3 , 1 5(2 0 0 5). 4 2 gu i del i n es r an ge. B ecau se h e di d not obj ect t o t h e en h an cem en tor t h e sentence, 1 revi ew i s f

or pl ai n err or. 2 C ou n self

o r M a rti n ez t w i ce m oved t o w i t h draw pu rsuan tt o A nder s v. C a lif o rn ia
. W e d e n ie d b o th m o tio n s b e c a u s e o f in s u ffic ie n t d o c u m e n ta tio n in 3 t h e r e c o r d th a tw o u ld id e n t if y th e s t a t u t e th a tw a s th e b a s is fo rM a r t in e z ’s T ex a s con victi on . T h e p a rti es h a ve n ow su p p l em en ted the re c o rd w i th
a p p rop ri a te d ocu m en ts f rom the state cou rt. 4 M ar t i ne z c o nt en ds t h att he r e c o r d d i d no te s t ab l i s h de f i ni t i ve l y t hathe h ad been convic t ed of i n decen cy w i t h a chi l d un der T EXAS P ENAL C ODE § 21. 11( a) ( 1)
. H e ass er t s t he s t at e r ec or d equal l y s upport s a f i ndi ng t hat he had been convi ct ed of

sexua lassaultun der T EXAS P ENAL C ODE § 2 2 .01 1 (a )(2) (A ),
w h i ch h e contends i s not a conv i ct i on f or a c ri m e of

vi ol en ce. W e di sagree. The j ur y i ns t r uc t i o ns pr o duc e d b y t he G o ver n m e nti n r e s po ns e t o o ur earl i er or der show t h at M art i n ez w as charged w i t h com m i t t i n g t h e cr i m e of i ndec enc y w i t h a c hi l d by e ngagi ng “ i n se xualcont ac tw i t h a c hi l d yo unger t han 17 ye ar s o f ag e and no t hi s s po us e . ” The l ang uag e o f t he i ns t r uc t i o ns t r ac ks t he la n g u a g e o f § 2 1 .1 1 (a )(1 ), w h ic h c r i m in a liz e s co n d u c t t h a t t h is co u r t h a s h e ld
c o ns t i t ut e s a c r i m e of vi ol e nc e f o rpur po s e s o f

§ 2 L1. 2, s pe c i f

i c al l y, t heN o. 08- 10131

SeeUn ited

Statesv. A

ya la , 542 F.3 d 494 , 495 (5th Cir. 200 8). We have also hel d th at 5 aviolationo f § 2 1 .1 1 (a)(2 ) co n stitute s th e o ff en seof se xu al ab u seo f amin or . See United States v. Zava la -Sus taita , 21 4 F .3d 6 01, 604(5th Cir. 2 000). Thus, a c on vi c t ionu nder eith er subsectionof § 2 1.11 woul d befor an offen se th at constitute s a crime of viol ence . 3 en u m erat ed of

fen se of sexua labu se of

a m i n or. G i ven t h e l an gu age i n t h e j u ry

5 i n st ructi on s, there i s no l on ger an y qu est i on t h at M art i n ez w as convi ct ed u n der § 2 1 .1 1 (a )(1 ). M art i n ez’ s Tex as convi ct i on w as f or a cri m e of vi ol en ce. A ccor di n gl y t h ere wa s n o e r r o ra n d t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s j u d g me n ti s A F F I RMED.