Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Daniel Jaime Vazquez MEDINA, also known as Daniel Jaime Vazquez, also known as Daniel Vazquez Medina, also known as Daniel Vasquez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-06-24
Citations: 531 F. App'x 508
Docket Number: No. 12-20429
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Daniel Jaime Vazquez MEDINA, also known as Daniel Jaime Vazquez, also known as Daniel Vazquez Medina, also known as Daniel Vasquez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JONES, DENNIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 531
Pages: 508–509

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Daniel Jaime Vazquez MEDINA, also known as Daniel Jaime Vazquez, also known as Daniel Vazquez Medina, also known as Daniel Vasquez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-20429
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 24, 2013.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Molly Estelle Odom, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JONES, DENNIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Jaime Vazquez Medina appeals the 45-month sentence imposed following his conviction of being present unlawfully in the United States following deportation. Medina contends that the district court erred by imposing a 16-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L 1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) based on his prior conviction for indecency with a child under § 21.11(a)(1) of the Texas Penal Code.
Medina's arguments are foreclosed by our decisions in United States v. Cabecera Rodriguez, 711 F.3d 541, 562-63 (5th Cir.2013) (en banc), and United States v. Quiroga-Hernandez, 698 F.3d 227, 229 (5th Cir.2012).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.