UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4076
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JUAN RIOS-RIOS, a/k/a Servando Rios-Rios, a/k/a Angel Rios-
Martinez,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:13-cr-00234-BO-1)
Submitted: November 18, 2014 Decided: November 20, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Eric J. Brignac,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer
P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Juan Rios-Rios pled guilty to illegal reentry of an
aggravated felon, under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2012), and
was sentenced to sixty months of imprisonment. On appeal, Rios-
Rios challenges the sixteen-level enhancement to his Sentencing
Guidelines range, arguing that his North Carolina conviction for
taking indecent liberties with a child is not a “crime of
violence” for purposes of the illegal re-entry Guideline. U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual (USSG) § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) (2013).
Rios-Rios’ argument is foreclosed by circuit
precedent. In United States v. Perez-Perez, 737 F.3d 950, 952
(4th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, S. Ct. , 2014 WL 2514329
(Oct. 6, 2014) (No. 13-10374), we held that taking indecent
liberties with a minor under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14–202.1(a)
(2013), qualifies categorically as sexual abuse of a minor and
therefore is a crime of violence within the meaning of USSG
§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(A); see United States v. Diaz–Ibarra, 522 F.3d 343
(4th Cir. 2008).
Accordingly, we affirm Rios-Rios’ sentence. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2