Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rafael MORENO-ORNELLAS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-10-18
Citations: 669 F. App'x 758
Docket Number: No, 16-40249 Conference Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rafael MORENO-ORNELLAS, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 669
Pages: 758–759

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rafael MORENO-ORNELLAS, Defendant-Appellant
No, 16-40249 Conference Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Date Filed: 10/18/2016
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Evan Gray Howze, H. Michael Sokolow, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Rafael Moreno-Ornellas raises arguments that are 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 an 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), which held that the Texas offense of indecency with a child by contact satisfied the generic definition of sexual abuse of a minor. Finally, he raises an argument that is foreclosed by United States v. Teran-Salas, 767 F.3d 453, 458-62 (5th Cir. 2014), in which we determined that the appellant was not entitled to relief based merely on the existence of a theoretical possibility that a defendant could be convicted under Texas Health & Safety Code § 481.112(a) for conduct that would not qualify as a federal drug trafficking offense. Accordingly, 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47,5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.