Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Omar Guadalupe PEREZ-BARRA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-13
Citations: 314 F. App'x 709
Docket Number: No. 08-41001
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Omar Guadalupe PEREZ-BARRA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 314
Pages: 709–709

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Omar Guadalupe PEREZ-BARRA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-41001
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 13, 2009.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
L. Aron Pena, Law Offices of L. Aron Pena, Edinburg, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Omar Guadalupe Perez-Barra appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
Perez-Barra challenges the imposition of an enhancement of sixteen offense levels pursuant to the United States Sentencing Guidelines § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). This enhancement was based on a determination that Perez-Barra's prior conviction for indecency with a child under Texas Penal Code § 21.11(a)(1) constituted "sexual abuse of a minor" and, thus, a crime of violence for purposes of § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). We have previously held that a conviction for indecency with a child under Texas Penal Code § 21.11(a)(1) qualifies as a crime of violence. United States v. Najera-N ajera, 519 F.3d 509, 512 (5th Cir.2008).
Perez-Barra also argues that his sentence was unreasonable and that the district court failed to adequately explain his sentence. When, as in this case, a district court chooses to impose a sentence within a properly calculated guidelines range, that sentence is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness, Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2462, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007), and little explanation is required, United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir.2005). We conclude that Perez-Barra has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness and that the district court's explanation was sufficient.
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Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.