Case ID: f-appx_545/html/0278-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Alfonso RUEDA-FLORES, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-40203
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    April 10, 2013.
    Jeffery Alan Babcock, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Sarah Beth Landau, Assistant Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Soko-low, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Alfonso Rueda-Flores (Rueda) pleaded guilty to being an alien unlawfully found in the U.S. after having been previously deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. His offense level was increased for a Texas conviction for burglary of a habitation that was deemed a “crime of violence” under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii). He was sentenced to 70 months of imprisonment.

Rueda contends that his prior Texas burglary was not a crime of violence because Texas law too broadly defines the “owner” of a habitation as a person with merely “greater right to possession” than the criminal actor. We review only for plain error because the issue is raised for the first time on appeal. See United States v. Ramirez, 557 F.3d 200, 205 (5th Cir.2009).

In United States v. Morales-Mota, we rejected the same contention made by Rueda, holding that the “greater right to possession” definition does not make Texas burglary broader than generic burglary. 704 F.3d 410, 411-12 (5th Cir.2013) (applying plain-error review). Rueda’s argument is thus foreclosed, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.