Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodrigo JIMENEZ-BINAGRA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-08-18
Citations: 613 F. App'x 394
Docket Number: No. 15-40103
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodrigo JIMENEZ-BINAGRA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 613
Pages: 394–395

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodrigo JIMENEZ-BINAGRA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-40103
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 18, 2015.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Philip G. Gallagher, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Evan Gray Howze, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Rodrigo Jimenez-Binagra raises an argument that is 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 the asserted age-differential requirement. He also raises an argument that is foreclosed by United States v. Elizondo-Hernandez, 755 F.3d 779, 781-82 (5th Cir.2014), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 1011, 190 L.Ed.2d 881 (2015), which held that the Texas offense of indecency with a child by contact satisfied the generic definition of "sexual abuse of a minor" and which rejected the argument that the offense was not an aggravated felony. The motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.