IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-20237

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

EDGAR SANTANA CARDENA GONZALES, also known as Cornelio Martinez

Espinoza, also known as Edgar Santana Gonzalez Cardenas, also known as

Edgar Santana Cardenas-Gonzalez, also known as Edgar Santana CardenasGonzales, also known as Edgar Santana Cardenas, also known as Reynaldo

Garza-Medina, also known as Eladio Vasquez, also known as Edgar Cardenas

Gonzalez, also known as Reynaldo Garza Medina, also known as Edgar Gonzalez

Cardenas, also known as Edgar Cardenas Gonzales, also known as Cornelio

Espinoza Martinez,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:11-CR-818-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Edgar Santana Cardenas Gonzales pleaded guilty, without the benefit of

a plea agreement, to illegal reentry by a previously deported alien after an

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 17, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

 Case: 12-20237 Document: 00512116609 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/17/2013
No. 12-20237

aggravated felony. The probation officer calculated a total offense level of 22,

which included a 12-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) based

on Cardenas Gonzales’s prior Texas conviction for burglary of a habitation. 

Cardenas Gonzales objected to the 12-level enhancement on the grounds that 

Texas’s burglary of a habitation offense does not meet the generic definition of

burglary of a dwelling because a person may be convicted of burglary in Texas

if he enters onto property without the consent of another person who has a

greater right to possession of the property. At sentencing, the district court

overruled the objection.

On appeal, Cardenas Gonzales challenges his sentence. We review

sentences for reasonableness. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We

first determine whether the district court committed any significant procedural

error. Id. If we find procedural error, we will remand unless the proponent of

the sentence shows the error is harmless, i.e., that it did not affect the district

court’s selection of the sentence. United States v. Delgado-Martinez, 564 F.3d

750, 753 (5th Cir. 2009).

Cardenas Gonzales argues that Texas’s burglary of a habitation offense

does not meet the generic definition of burglary of a dwelling and thus does not

constitute a crime of violence. If the statute’s definition of an offense is broader

than the generic definition, then that offense cannot serve as a predicate for the

adjustment. United States v. Sanchez, 667 F.3d 555, 561 (5th Cir. 2012). This

court has held that burglary of a habitation under § 30.02(a)(1) of the Texas

Penal Code, the statute Cardenas Gonzales was convicted under, constitutes

burglary of a dwelling and supports an enhancement under § 2L1.2. United

States v. Garcia-Mendez, 420 F.3d 454, 456-57 (5th Cir. 2005). According to

Cardenas Gonzales, because a person can be convicted of burglary of a habitation

even if he has a legitimate right to possess the property, the Texas statute is

broader than the generic definition of burglary of a dwelling. We recently

rejected a materially indistinguishable argument in United States v. Joslin, No.

2

 Case: 12-20237 Document: 00512116609 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/17/2013
No. 12-20237

11-40863, 2012 WL 3488717, *4 (5th Cir. Aug. 14, 2012), reasoning that

“[m]erely maintaining an inferior possessory interest in a habitation does not

extinguish the potential violence that may result when a person enters a

habitation with the intent to commit theft.” Id. Although Joslin is unpublished,

we find it persuasive. See United States v. Pino Gonzalez, 636 F.3d 157, 160 (5th

Cir.), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 178 (2011). 

AFFIRMED.

3

 Case: 12-20237 Document: 00512116609 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/17/2013