Opinion ID: 811907
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: A person over the age of seventeen has anal or

Text: oral sexual intercourse, with consent, with a person of the age of twelve years or more, but under the age of seventeen years, when there is an age difference of greater than two years between the two persons. B. Lack of knowledge of the juvenile’s age shall not be a defense. Emission is not necessary; and penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the crime. LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 14:80 (West Supp. 1996). 3 Case: 11-41182 Document: 00512053431 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/14/2012 No. 11-41182 The district court did not plainly err in applying the crime of violence enhancement. Legally, no decision from our court has held that Louisiana's two-year age differential affects whether the offense fits the ordinary meaning of sexual abuse of a minor. See United States v. Rodriguez, No. 11-20881, — F.3d —, 2012 WL 4513839, at  (5th Cir. Oct. 3, 2012) (Graves, J., concurring). No plain error requiring our correction exists therefore. Martinez argues for the first time on appeal that there is no legal basis for his guilty plea to carnal knowledge of a juvenile because the statute criminalizes sexual conduct with a victim between the ages of twelve and seventeen and the victim in this case was eleven years of age. As such, he contends that he could not have pleaded guilty to the elements of the offense. He further argues that because it was legally impossible to plead guilty to the relevant statute, this court cannot consider the bill of information in determining whether his prior conviction constitutes a crime of violence. His arguments are unavailing. Martinez cannot collaterally challenge his conviction in a direct criminal appeal on the grounds that the conviction was legally impossible. See Custis v. United States, 511 U.S. 485, 495-97 (1994). The district court did not plainly err applying the crime of violence sentencing enhancement. His sentence is AFFIRMED. 4