Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Santos ISIDRO-ACOSTA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-26
Citations: 399 F. App'x 25
Docket Number: No. 10-40243
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Santos ISIDRO-ACOSTA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SMITH, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 399
Pages: 25–25

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Santos ISIDRO-ACOSTA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-40243
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 26, 2010.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before SMITH, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jose Santos Isidro-Acosta appeals his 41-month sentence following his conviction of unlawful reentry pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Isidro-Acosta contends that the district court erred by imposing a 16-level crime of violence enhancement based on his prior Texas conviction of indecency by contact with a child under 17 years of age, a violation of Texas Penal Code § 21.11(a)(2). He argues that the Texas conviction is not within the enumerated offense of sexual abuse of a minor because an offense under § 21.11(a) can be committed against a victim who is 16 years of age. The Government moves for summary affirmance in lieu of filing a brief.
As Isidro-Acosta concedes, his argument is foreclosed by circuit precedent. See United States v. Ayala, 542 F.3d 494, 495 (5th Cir.2008); United States v. Zavala-Sustaita, 214 F.3d 601, 604 (5th Cir.2000). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government's motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and its alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.