Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Daniel VILLEGAS-MARQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-08-20
Citations: 539 F. App'x 392
Docket Number: No. 12-41448
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Daniel VILLEGAS-MARQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 539
Pages: 392–393

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Daniel VILLEGAS-MARQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-41448
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 20, 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, H. Michael Soko-low, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Daniel Villegas-Marquez raises an argument that he concedes is foreclosed by United States v. Morales-Mota, 704 F.3d 410, 412 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2374, 185 L.Ed.2d 1091 (2013). In Morales-Mota, 704 F.3d at 412, this court, relying upon its holding in Unit ed States v. Joslin, 487 Fed.Appx. 139, 141-43 (5th Cir.2012), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 133 S.Ct. 1847, 185 L.Ed.2d 851 (2013), rejected the argument that the Texas offense of "burglary of a habitation" is outside 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." The appellant's 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.