Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Marco Antonio OVALLE-CASTILLO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-05-14
Citations: 544 F. App'x 379
Docket Number: No. 12-40670
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Marco Antonio OVALLE-CASTILLO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JONES, DENNIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 544
Pages: 379–379

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Marco Antonio OVALLE-CASTILLO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-40670
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 14, 2013.
Jeffery Alan Babcock, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JONES, DENNIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Marco Antonio Ovalle-Castillo appeals his 57-month sentence for having been found unlawfully in the United States following deportation. He contends that the district court plainly erred by imposing the 16-level crime of violence enhancement in U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 based upon his prior conviction for burglary of a habitation with intent to commit theft, in violation of Texas Penal Code § 30.02(a)(1). According to Ovalle-Castillo, the Texas offense is broader than the enumerated offense of burglary of a dwelling because Texas defines "owner" of a habitation to include a person who has "a greater right to possession of the property than the actor."
Because Ovalle-Castillo did not object to the enhancement in the district court on the basis he now advances, we review for plain error. See United States v. Chavez-Hernandez, 671 F.3d 494, 497-99 (5th Cirr.2012). We rejected a materially indistinguishable argument in United States v. Morales-Mota, 704 F.3d 410, 412-13 (5th Cir.2013), petition for cert. filed (Apr. 8, 2013) (No. 12-9676). In light of Morales-Mota, we find no error here, plain or otherwise. See id.
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.