Case ID: f-appx_516/html/0348-01.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. Jose Carmen Silva GOMEZ, also known as Jose Carmen Silva, also known as Jose Carmen Silva-Gomez, also known as Tranquilin Silva Gomez, also known as Tranquilin Gomez, also known as Jose Silva, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-20911
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    March 11, 2013.
    Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Defendant-Appellant Jose Carmen Silva Gomez pleaded guilty to one count of illegal reentry and was sentenced within the advisory guidelines range to 70 months in prison. Silva Gomez now appeals the district court’s imposition of a 16-level enhancement for a prior crime of violence pursuant to § 2L1.2 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Finding no error, we affirm.

Silva Gomez contends that his prior conviction for burglary of a habitation under Texas Penal Code § 30.02(a)(1) does not constitute a crime of violence for purposes of the § 2L1.2 enhancement. As Silva Gomez concedes, he did not raise this argument in the district court, so our review is for plain error. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir.2009). Silva Gomez claims that his prior burglary offense does not constitute the generic offense of burglary for purposes of § 2L1.2 because he was charged with entry into a habitation owned by a person with a greater right to possession. He argues that this “greater right to possession” theory is unique to Texas and makes the offense broader than generic burglary.

We recently rejected a materially indistinguishable argument. See United States v. Morales-Mota, 704 F.3d 410, 411-13 (5th Cir.2013). In light of Morales-Mota, the district court did not commit any error, plain or otherwise, in imposing the enhancement.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.