From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Isidro-Acosta

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Oct 26, 2010
399 F. App'x 25 (5th Cir. 2010)

Opinion

No. 10-40243 Conference Calendar.

October 26, 2010.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender's Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, USDC No. 7:09-CR-1513-1.

Before SMITH, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.


Jose Santos Isidro-Acosta appeals his 41-month sentence following his conviction of unlawful reentry pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Isidro-Acosta contends that the district court erred by imposing a 16-level crime of violence enhancement based on his prior Texas conviction of indecency by contact with a child under 17 years of age, a violation of Texas Penal Code § 21.11(a)(2). He argues that the Texas conviction is not within the enumerated offense of sexual abuse of a minor because an offense under § 21.11(a) can be committed against a victim who is 16 years of age. The Government moves for summary affirmance in lieu of filing a brief.

As Isidro-Acosta concedes, his argument is foreclosed by circuit precedent. See United States v. Ayala, 542 F.3d 494, 495 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Zavala-Sustaita, 214 F.3d 601, 604 (5th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government's motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and its alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Isidro-Acosta

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Oct 26, 2010
399 F. App'x 25 (5th Cir. 2010)
Case details for

U.S. v. Isidro-Acosta

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Santos ISIDRO-ACOSTA…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Oct 26, 2010

Citations

399 F. App'x 25 (5th Cir. 2010)