Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Alberto Estivens RIASCOS-CARDENAS, also known as Angel Santiago-Resto, also known as Angel Luis Santiago, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-12-17
Citations: 548 F. App'x 313
Docket Number: No. 13-40346
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Alberto Estivens RIASCOS-CARDENAS, also known as Angel Santiago-Resto, also known as Angel Luis Santiago, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 548
Pages: 313–313

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Alberto Estivens RIASCOS-CARDENAS, also known as Angel Santiago-Resto, also known as Angel Luis Santiago, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-40346
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 17, 2013.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Molly Estelle Odom, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Alberto Estivens Riascos-Cardenas 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 United 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." Accordingly, 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.