Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eugenio MARQUEZ-DELGADO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-07-22
Citations: 537 F. App'x 318
Docket Number: No. 12-40190
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eugenio MARQUEZ-DELGADO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 537
Pages: 318–319

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eugenio MARQUEZ-DELGADO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-40190
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 22, 2013.
John Richard Berry, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and KING and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Eugenio Marquez-Delgado (Marquez) appeals the sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States illegally. He challenges only the 16-level enhancement that he received pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) because he had been previously deported following his prior conviction for sexual assault of a child under Texas Penal Code § 22.011(a)(2).
The district court's characterization of a prior offense as a crime of violence is a question of law that this court reviews de novo. United States v. Santiesteban-Hernandez, 469 F.3d 376, 378 (5th Cir.2006). This court has squarely rejected Marquez's arguments that a conviction under § 22.011(a)(2) is not a crime of violence because that statute criminalizes behavior that is broader than the generic, contemporary definitions of sexual abuse of a minor and statutory rape. United States v. Rodriguez, 711 F.3d 541, 562-63 & n. 28 (5`th Cir.2013) (en banc), petition for cert, filed (June 6, 2013) (No. 12-10695). Accordingly, 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.