
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan Antonio Linarez JEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-40123
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 18, 2013.
    Renata Ann Gowie, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Margaret Christina Ling, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Juan Antonio Linarez Jerez appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 30-month sentence for being found illegally in the United States after having previously been deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The district court enhanced Linarez Jer-ez’s sentence based upon its finding that his prior California conviction for lewd acts with a child under the age of 14 was a conviction for a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A). Linarez Jerez argues that the offense for which he was convicted did not qualify as a crime of violence because the statute under which he was convicted was overly broad.

Linarez Jerez did not object on this basis in the district court. Accordingly, we review for plain error only. See United States v. Morales-Mota, 704 F.3d 410, 411-12 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2374, 185 L.Ed.2d 1091 (2013). In 2006, Linarez Jerez was convicted under CalPenal Code Ann. § 288(a). Under a common sense approach, his conviction was for the enumerated offense of sexual abuse of a minor and, accordingly, a crime of violence under § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii). See § 2L1.2, comment (n.l(b)(iii)); United States v. Izaguirre-Flores, 405 F.3d 270, 275 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Zavalar-Sustaita, 214 F.3d 601, 603-04 (5th Cir.2000). Lina-rez-Jerez cannot demonstrate that the district court committed a clear or obvious error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     