Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Salvador Antonio FERNANDEZ-MONTANO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-04-16
Citations: 562 F. App'x 267
Docket Number: No. 13-40716
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Salvador Antonio FERNANDEZ-MONTANO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before PRADO, ELROD, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 562
Pages: 267–268

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Salvador Antonio FERNANDEZ-MONTANO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-40716
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 16, 2014.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender H. Michael Soko-low, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before PRADO, ELROD, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Salvador Antonio Fernandez-Monta-no 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F.3d at 412, this court, relying upon its holding in United States v. Joslin, 487 Fed.Appx. 139, 141-43 (5th Cir.2012) (unpublished), cert.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, Fernandez-Montano's unopposed 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.