AGGRAVATED FELONY - STATUTORY RAPE
United States v. Munoz-Ortenza, __ F.3d __, 2009 WL 693146 (5th Cir. Mar. 18, 2009) (California conviction for oral copulation of a minor, in violation of Penal Code 288a(b)(1), was not necessarily "sexual abuse of a minor," and thus not a "crime of violence" for illegal re-entry sentencing purposes, since the offense may be committed against a person under 18, while the minor must be under 16 to qualify as "sexual abuse of a minor."), following United States v. Lopez-DeLeon, 513 F.3d 472 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 128 S.Ct. 2916, 171 L.Ed.2d 851 (2008) (California conviction for unlawful sex with a minor, in violation of Penal Code 261.5(c), is not necessarily "sexual abuse of a minor" as the statute punishes sex with a person 18 years and under).

Fourth Circuit

AGGRAVATED FELONY " STATUTORY RAPE
United States v. Rangel-Cataneda, __ F.3d __, No. 12-4408 (4th Cir. Mar. 7, 2013) (Tennessee aggravated statutory rape conviction under Tenn. Code Ann. 39-13-506(c) is not categorically a crime of violence for illegal re-entry purposes, because Tennessee sets the age of consent at eighteen).

Fifth Circuit

AGGRAVATED FELONY"CRIME OF VIOLENCE"SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH A MINOR
United States v. Chavez-Hernandez, 671 F.3d 494 (5th Cir. Feb. 13, 2012) (Florida conviction for sexual activity with a minor, in violation of Florida Statute 794.05, was not a crime of violence for illegal re-entry sentencing purposes, because state statute applied to 17-year-olds; defense counsel's admission at sentence that victim was 14 years of age established victim's status as a minor under the federal standard).

Ninth Circuit

CRIME OF MORAL TURPITUDE - STATUTORY RAPE
Quintero- Salazar v. Keisler, __ F.3d __, 2007 WL 2916162 (9th Cir. Oct. 9, 2007) (California conviction of statutory rape, in violation of California Penal Code 261.5(d), where the victim is under 16 years of age and the actor is over 21, is not a crime involving moral turpitude, since (1) it includes consensual sex between [at minimum] between a high-school junior and a college sophomore, and is not inheritly base, vile, or depraved; court also noted that (2) the statute proscribes at least some malum prohibitum conduct, since the same act would not be illegal at all if the two were married at the time; (3) the same conduct is not illegal in other states; (4) the statute was passed in order to address teenage pregnancy, not to avoid a moral issue; and (5) the offense does not require any element of intent be proven).