IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
                                                    Fifth Circuit

                                                 FILED
                                                                           March 13, 2009
                                     No. 08-41001
                                   Summary Calendar                    Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                               Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                   Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

OMAR GUADALUPE PEREZ-BARRA,

                                                   Defendant–Appellant.


                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 7:08-CR-20-1


Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
       Omar Guadalupe Perez-Barra appeals the sentence imposed following his
guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation, a violation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326(a).
       Perez-Barra challenges the imposition of an enhancement of sixteen
offense    levels   pursuant     to   the    United    States    Sentencing      Guidelines
§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). This enhancement was based on a determination that Perez-
Barra’s prior conviction for indecency with a child under Texas Penal Code

       *
         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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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.
                                  No. 08-41001

§ 21.11(a)(1) constituted “sexual abuse of a minor” and, thus, a crime of violence
for purposes of § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). We have previously held that a conviction for
indecency with a child under Texas Penal Code § 21.11(a)(1) qualifies as a crime
of violence. United States v. Najera-Najera, 

, 512 (5th Cir. 2008).
      Perez-Barra also argues that his sentence was unreasonable and that the
district court failed to adequately explain his sentence. When, as in this case,
a district court chooses to impose a sentence within a properly calculated
guidelines range, that sentence is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness,
Rita v. United States, 

, 2462 (2007), and little explanation is
required, United States v. Mares, 

, 519 (5th Cir. 2005). We conclude
that Perez-Barra has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness and that
the district court’s explanation was sufficient.
      AFFIRMED.




                                        2