22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T50b,MEMORANDUM Gerardo Garcia-Antonio appeals from the 86-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. Garcia-Antonio contends that the district court erred in applying a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) on the basis of his pri- or California conviction for lewd and lascivious acts upon a child. The presentence report, to which Garcia-Antonio did not object, quoted from Garcia-Antonio’s state-court plea agreement, in which he admitted facts that satisfy the generic definition of sexual abuse of a minor. See United States v. Castro, 607 F.3d 566, 569-70 (9th Cir.2010). Under these circumstances, the district court did not plainly err in applying the enhancement. See United States v. Gonzalez-Aparicio, 663 F.3d 419, 432-33 (9th Cir.2011). Garcia-Antonio also contends that the appeal is moot because he has been released and deported. This contention fails because he is still serving his term of supervised release. See United States v. Rivas-Gonzalez, 384 F.3d 1034, 1042 (9th Cir.2004). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T53d,

MEMORANDUM

Gerardo Garcia-Antonio appeals from the 86-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.

Garcia-Antonio contends that the district court erred in applying a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) on the basis of his pri- or California conviction for lewd and lascivious acts upon a child. The presentence report, to which Garcia-Antonio did not object, quoted from Garcia-Antonio’s state-court plea agreement, in which he admitted facts that satisfy the generic definition of sexual abuse of a minor. See United States v. Castro, 607 F.3d 566, 569-70 (9th Cir.2010). Under these circumstances, the district court did not plainly err in applying the enhancement. See United States v. Gonzalez-Aparicio, 663 F.3d 419, 432-33 (9th Cir.2011).

Garcia-Antonio also contends that the appeal is moot because he has been released and deported. This contention fails because he is still serving his term of supervised release. See United States v. Rivas-Gonzalez, 384 F.3d 1034, 1042 (9th Cir.2004).

AFFIRMED.

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