
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Angel PERDOMO-CASTRO, a.k.a. Jose Angel Perdomo Castro, a.k.a. Jose Angel Peredomo-Castro, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-10080.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted June 15, 2011.
    
    Filed June 29, 2011.
    Ryan P. Dejoe, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Isabel Michela Robles, Law Offices of Clay Hernandez, PC The Johnson House, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Angel Perdomo-Castro appeals from the 48-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Perdomo-Castro contends that the district court erred by imposing a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) for his 2005 Texas felony sexual assault conviction. The district court did not err in imposing the enhancement, as the indictment and Perdomo-Castro’s judicial confession in the Texas case clearly show that the conviction was for a sex offense perpetrated without the victim’s consent through “the use of physical force and violence.” See U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 cmt. n. l(B)(iii) (forcible sex offense is a crime of violence); United States v. Espinoza-Morales, 621 F.3d 1141, 1149 (9th Cir.2010) (prior conviction qualifies as a crime of violence if the “record of conviction shows the ... defendant necessarily admitted all of the generic elements in a plea”) (internal quotations and footnote omitted).

Perdomo-Castro also contends that the enhancement violates the constitutional proscription against ex post facto laws. He forfeited this argument by failing to raise it in his opening brief, and no exceptions to this rule apply. See Koemer v. Grigas, 328 F.3d 1039, 1048-49 (9th Cir.2003).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     