United States v. Daniel Villegas-Marquez

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Daniel Villegas-Marquez

539 F. App'x 392

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided August 20, 2013·No. 12-41448·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Daniel Villegas-Marquez 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 Unit *393 ed 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.” 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Daniel Villegas-Marquez 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 Unit *393 ed 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.” 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

United States v. Daniel Villegas-Marquez, 539 F. App'x 392 (5th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

539 F. App'x 392 (United States v. Daniel Villegas-Marquez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related