Esteban Rivera-Pina appeals his 96-month sentence for being illegally present in the United States following deportation. He argues that the district court erred by imposing a 16-level sentence enhancement pursuant to United States Sentencing Guidelines § 2L1.2 based upon his two prior convictions for indecency with a child in violation of Texas Penal Code § 21.11. He contends that § 21.11 does not satisfy *591 the “generic, contemporary meaning” of either “statutory rape” or “sexual abuse of a minor” because it criminalizes sexual conduct with persons under the age of 17, and it criminalizes conduct where the age differential is less than four years. He concedes that his arguments are foreclosed by this court’s precedent, but he seeks to preserve them for further review. The Government has moved for summary affirmance or, in the alternative, an extension of time to file a brief.

Rivera-Pina’s arguments are foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Rodriguez, 711 F.3d 541 (5th Cir. 2013) (en banc). The defendant in Rodriguez challenged a sentence enhancement under § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) based on his conviction for sexual assault of a child in violation of Texas Penal Code § 22.011(a)(2). Rodriguez, 711 F.3d at 544. We rejected his contention that § 22.011(a)(2) is broader than the “generic, contemporary meaning” of “sexual abuse of a minor” because it prescribes a three-year instead of a four-year age differential between the victim and the defendant. Id. at 562 n. 8. We also rejected his challenge to the Texas statute’s definition of the term “child” as a person under age 17. Id.

Consequently, the motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED and the motion for an extension of time is DENIED.

AFFIRMED.