Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Irimak Rafael MELENDEZ-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-03-26
Citations: 517 F. App'x 279
Docket Number: No. 12-40883
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Irimak Rafael MELENDEZ-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SMITH, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 517
Pages: 279–280

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Irimak Rafael MELENDEZ-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-40883
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 26, 2013.
Jeffery Alan Babcock, Assistant U.S. Attorney, 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 SMITH, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Irimak Rafael Melendez-Hernandez appeals the 48-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for being found in the United States after deportation following an aggravated felony conviction. He asserts that the district court erred in imposing a 16-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) based on its determination that his prior Texas burglary of a habitation conviction was a crime of violence. Specifically, he argues that his conviction was not for generic burglary because his conviction fell under Texas's unique "greater right to possession" theory.
Because he objected to the enhancement in the district court on this ground, we review the issue de novo. See United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir.2008). We recently rejected this same contention in United States v. Morales-Mota, 704 F.3d 410, 412 (5th Cir.2013) (affirming a 16-level sentencing enhancement under § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) based on a Texas conviction for burglary of a habitation under § 30.02(a)). Accordingly, 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.