Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Rodrigo Jimenez-Binagra raises an argument that is foreclosed by United States v. Rodriguez, 711 F.3d 541, 562-63 & n. 28 (5th Cir. 2013) (en banc), in which we held that the generic, contemporary definition of “sexual abuse of a minor” does not require the age of consent to be below 17 years old and does not include *395 the asserted age-differential requirement. He also raises an argument that is foreclosed by United States v. Elizondo-Hernandez, 755 F.3d 779, 781-82 (5th Cir. 2014), ce rt. denied, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 1011, 190 L.Ed.2d 881 (2015), which held that the Texas offense of indecency with a child by contact satisfied the generic definition of “sexual abuse of a minor” and which rejected the argument that the offense was not an aggravated felony. The motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.