Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-20174/USCOURTS-ca5-14-20174-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Orlando Franco-Alarcon
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-20174

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ORLANDO FRANCO-ALARCON, also known as Orlando Adan Franco, also 

known as Orlando Franco Alarcon, also known as Orlando A. Franco, also 

known as XX Hondaboy, also known as Sergio Alarcon,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:13-CV-652-1

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Orlando Franco-Alarcon 

raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v. Rodriguez-Salazar, 

768 F.3d 437, 437-38 (5th Cir. 2014), and United States v. Morales-Mota, 704 

F.3d 410, 412 (5th Cir. 2013). In Rodriguez-Salazar, we rejected the argument 

that the Texas offense of theft is broader than the generic, contemporary 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 21, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-20174 Document: 00513012554 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2015
No. 14-20174

definition of theft because the Texas offense, which includes theft by deception, 

may be committed by taking property with the owner’s consent. RodriguezSalazar, 768 F.3d at 437-38. In Morales-Mota, we rejected the argument that 

the Texas offense of “burglary of a habitation” is broader than the generic, 

contemporary definition of “burglary of a dwelling” under U.S.S.G. 

§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) because it defines the “owner” of a habitation as a person 

with a “greater right to possession of the property than the actor.” MoralesMota, 704 F.3d at 412. Accordingly, the unopposed motion for summary 

affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time to file 

a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 14-20174 Document: 00513012554 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2015