Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jovenal VASQUEZ-SEGURA, also known as Juvenal Vazquez-Segura, also known as Jovenal Vazquez-Segura, also known as Jovenal Vasquez Segura, also known as Jovenal Segura-Vasquez, also known as Jovenal Segura, also known as Jovenal Segura Vasquez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-04-20
Citations: 646 F. App'x 362
Docket Number: No. 15-50524
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jovenal VASQUEZ-SEGURA, also known as Juvenal Vazquez-Segura, also known as Jovenal Vazquez-Segura, also known as Jovenal Vasquez Segura, also known as Jovenal Segura-Vasquez, also known as Jovenal Segura, also known as Jovenal Segura Vasquez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, ELROD, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 646
Pages: 362–362

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jovenal VASQUEZ-SEGURA, also known as Juvenal Vazquez-Segura, also known as Jovenal Vazquez-Segura, also known as Jovenal Vasquez Segura, also known as Jovenal Segura-Vasquez, also known as Jovenal Segura, also known as Jovenal Segura Vasquez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-50524
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 20, 2016.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Laura G. Greenberg, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Maureen Scott Franco, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before REAVLEY, ELROD, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Jovenal Vasquez-Segura raises an argument that is foreclosed by United States v. Rodriguez, 711 F.3d 541, 562 & 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. Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.