Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cesar Hernandez LOZANO, also known as Cesar Lozano Hernandez, also known as Cesar Hernandez-Lozano, also known as Cesar L. Hernandez, 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 403
Docket Number: No. 12-20730
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cesar Hernandez LOZANO, also known as Cesar Lozano Hernandez, also known as Cesar Hernandez-Lozano, also known as Cesar L. Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 539
Pages: 403–403

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cesar Hernandez LOZANO, also known as Cesar Lozano Hernandez, also known as Cesar Hernandez-Lozano, also known as Cesar L. Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-20730
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, Michael Lance Herman, 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, Cesar Hernandez Lozano 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 Government's motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, its alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.