Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jorge Alberto OLGUIN-LOZANO, 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 399
Docket Number: No. 13-40069
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jorge Alberto OLGUIN-LOZANO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 539
Pages: 399–400

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jorge Alberto OLGUIN-LOZANO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-40069
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, Margaret Christina Ling, 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, Jorge Alberto Olguin-Lozano raises arguments that he concedes are foreclosed by United States v. Newson, 515 F.3d 374, 378-79 (5th Cir.2008), and 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). Newson held that the Government may decline to move for an additional one-point reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b) based on the defendant's refusal to waive his right to appeal. 515 F.3d at 378-79. 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)(1)(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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.