Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Oliverio VALENCIA-GARCIA, also known as Oliverio Garcia Valencia, also known as Oliverio Garza Valencia, also known as Oliverio Valencia Garcia, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-06-16
Citations: 607 F. App'x 402
Docket Number: No. 14-20708
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Oliverio VALENCIA-GARCIA, also known as Oliverio Garcia Valencia, also known as Oliverio Garza Valencia, also known as Oliverio Valencia Garcia, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 607
Pages: 402–403

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Oliverio VALENCIA-GARCIA, also known as Oliverio Garcia Valencia, also known as Oliverio Garza Valencia, also known as Oliverio Valencia Garcia, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-20708
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 16, 2015.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Evan Gray Howze, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Oliverio Valencia-Garda raises an argument that he concedes is foreclosed by United States v. Morales-Mota, 704 F.3d 410, 412 (5th Cir.2013), which rejected the argument that the Texas offense of "burglary of a habitation" is broader than the generic, contemporary definition of "burglary of a dwelling" under U.S.S.G. § 2L 1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) because it defines the "owner" of a habitation as a person with a "greater right to possession of the property than the actor." 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Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.