
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Cesar TLATENCHI-ENRIQUEZ, also known as Cesar Tlatenchi Enriquez, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-10536
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    April 1, 2009.
    
      Aaron Wiley, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Laura S. Harper, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before JONES, Chief Judge, and STEWART and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Cesar TlatenchUEnriquez appeals his 46-month sentence following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United States after removal. Tlatenchi-Enriquez argues that the district court erred in applying a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) because the district court considered uncertified Nebraska judicial documents in determining that Tlatenchi-Enriquez’s prior sexual assault conviction constituted a crime of violence under § 2L1.2.

A district court may “use all facts admitted by the defendant in determining whether [a] prior conviction qualifies as an enumerated offense under § 2L1.2.” United States v. Mendoza-Sanchez, 456 F.3d 479, 483 (5th Cir.2006); see also United States v. Jenkins, 487 F.3d 279, 281 (5th Cir.2007). Tlatenchi-Enriquez admitted at sentencing that his sexual assault conviction was based on his sexual relations with a 14-year-old girlfriend while he was 19 years old. He conceded at sentencing and concedes on appeal that such a conviction would constitute a crime of violence under § 2L1.2. Tlatenchi-Enriquez’s admission at sentencing of the facts underlying his sexual assault conviction provided a sufficient basis for the district court to conclude that the conviction constituted a crime of violence. See Mendoza-Sanchez, 456 F.3d at 483.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     