Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Edwin Pavon AGUILAR, also known as Edvin Leonel Aguilar, also known as Edvin Leonel Pavon Aguilar, also known as Carlos E. Villagrana, also known as Edwin Aguilar, also known as Edvin Leonel Pavon-Aguilar, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-06-17
Citations: 573 F. App'x 354
Docket Number: No. 13-20545
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Edwin Pavon AGUILAR, also known as Edvin Leonel Aguilar, also known as Edvin Leonel Pavon Aguilar, also known as Carlos E. Villagrana, also known as Edwin Aguilar, also known as Edvin Leonel Pavon-Aguilar, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, HAYNES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 573
Pages: 354–355

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Edwin Pavon AGUILAR, also known as Edvin Leonel Aguilar, also known as Edvin Leonel Pavon Aguilar, also known as Carlos E. Villagrana, also known as Edwin Aguilar, also known as Edvin Leonel Pavon-Aguilar, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-20545
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 17, 2014.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Philip G. Gallagher, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Michael Lance Herman, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Molly Estelle Odom, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, HAYNES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Edwin Pavón Aguilar raises an argument that he concedes is foreclosed by United States v. Rodriguez, 711 F.3d 541, 562 n. 28 (5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 512, 187 L.Ed.2d 365 (2013), in which this court held that the generic, contemporary definition of "sexual abuse of a minor" does not require that the age of consent be lower than 17 years old and does not include the age-differential requirement asserted. Accordingly, the unopposed 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.