Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Luis Roberto Ramirez CASTILLO, also known as Luis Roberto Ramirez, also known as Luis Roberto Ramirez-Castillo, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-05-05
Citations: 689 F. App'x 282
Docket Number: No. 16-20737 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Luis Roberto Ramirez CASTILLO, also known as Luis Roberto Ramirez, also known as Luis Roberto Ramirez-Castillo, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 689
Pages: 282–283

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Luis Roberto Ramirez CASTILLO, also known as Luis Roberto Ramirez, also known as Luis Roberto Ramirez-Castillo, Defendant-Appellant
No. 16-20737 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed May 5, 2017
Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Timothy William Crooks, Scott Andrew Martin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Luis Roberto Ramirez Castillo raises an argument that is foreclosed by United States v. Rodriguez-Salazar, 768 F.3d 437, 437-38 (5th Cir. 2014). In Rodriguez-Salazar, 768 F.3d at 437-38, we rejected the argument that the Texas offense of theft is broader than the generic, contemporary definition of theft because the Texas offense, which includes theft by deception, may be committed by taking property with the owner's consent. Accordingly, the' 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.