Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Celestino RIVERA-CASTANEDA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-08-18
Citations: 331 F. App'x 337
Docket Number: No. 08-41071
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Celestino RIVERA-CASTANEDA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 331
Pages: 337–338

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Celestino RIVERA-CASTANEDA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-41071.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 18, 2009.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal, Public Defender Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Celestino Rivera-Castañeda (Rivera) appeals the 70-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to illegal reentry following a previous deportation. He contends that the district court reversibly erred in applying the U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 enhancement to his sentence based upon his prior Texas conviction for indecency with a child-contact, a violation of Texas Penal Code § 21.11(a)(1). He asserts that a violation of § 21.11(a)(1) does not constitute the enumerated offense of sexual abuse of a minor for purposes of the § 2L1;2 enhancement.
As Rivera acknowledges, this court has already addressed the issue of whether a prior Texas conviction for indecency with a child, a violation of § 21.11(a)(1), constitutes sexual abuse of a minor for purposes of § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii). See United States v. Ayala, 542 F.3d 494, 495 (5th Cir.2008), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 129 S.Ct. 1388, 173 L.Ed.2d 639 (2009); United States v. Najera-Najera, 519 F.3d 509, 511-12 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,-U.S.-, 129 S.Ct. 139, 172 L.Ed.2d 105 (2008); United States v. Zavala-Sustaita, 214 F.3d 601, 604 (5th Cir.2000). Because Rivera's only argument on appeal is foreclosed by this court's precedent, the judgment of the district court 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Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.