Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Enrique Perales ORDUNA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-05-23
Citations: 544 F. App'x 441
Docket Number: No. 12-41032
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Enrique Perales ORDUNA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and KING and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 544
Pages: 441–442

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Enrique Perales ORDUNA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-41032
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 23, 2013.
Paula Camille Offenhauser, Renata Ann Gowie, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Timothy William Crooks, H. Michael Sokolow, Federal Pub- lie Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and KING and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Enrique Perales Orduna (Perales) appeals the 63-month sentence imposed following his conviction for illegal reentry following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Perales argues that the district court plainly erred by imposing a 16-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) based on his prior conviction for indecency with a child under § 21.11(a)(2) of the Texas Penal Code.
Perales's argument is foreclosed by our decisions in United States v. Rodriguez, 711 F.3d 541, 562-63 (5th Cir.2013) (en banc), and United States v. Zavala-Sustaita, 214 F.3d 601, 604-08 (5th Cir.2000). To the extent that Perales argues that his prior conviction for indecency with a child does not constitute sexual abuse of a minor and thus is not an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(A) for purposes of the enhanced penalty provision in § 1326(b)(2), that argument is also foreclosed. See Zavala-Sustaita, 214 F.3d at 607-08.
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.