
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Abelino LOPEZ-CORTEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-40561
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 12, 2008.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern Distriet of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Defendant-Appellant Abelino Lopez-Cortez appeals his conviction and sentence following his guilty plea to illegal reentry after deportation following a conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Lopez-Cortez argues that the district court erred by enhancing his sentence pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) based on the determination that his 1991 conviction for indecency with a child under Tex. Penal Code § 21.11(a)(1) was a crime of violence.

Sexual abuse of a minor is an enumerated offense which qualifies as a crime of violence under § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii). United States v. Zavala-Sustaita, 214 F.3d 601, 604-05 (5th Cir.2000), held that a violation of § 21.11(a) is sexual abuse of a minor as that term is used in its “ordinary, contemporary, [and] common meaning.” As such, the district court did not clearly err in applying the enhancement under § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii). See United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 202-03 & n. 9 (5th Cir.2005).

In light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), Lopez-Cortez challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the offense that must be found by a jury. This argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Toyres v. United. States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir.2007), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 872, 169 L.Ed.2d 737 (2008). 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     