Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Bautista GARCIA-ZELAYA, also known as Jose Garcia, also known as Juan B. Garcia, also known as Juan Bautista Garcia Zelaya, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-04-21
Citations: 600 F. App'x 268
Docket Number: No. 14-20206
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Bautista GARCIA-ZELAYA, also known as Jose Garcia, also known as Juan B. Garcia, also known as Juan Bautista Garcia Zelaya, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 600
Pages: 268–269

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Bautista GARCIA-ZELAYA, also known as Jose Garcia, also known as Juan B. Garcia, also known as Juan Bautista Garcia Zelaya, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-20206
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 21, 2015.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Sokolow, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Juan Bautista Garcia-Zelaya raises an argument that he concedes is foreclosed by United States v. Morales-Mota, 704 F.3d 410, 412 (5th Cir.2013). In Morales-Mota, 704 F.3d at 412, 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)(l)(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." Accordingly, the unopposed motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.