USA v. Daniel Villegas-Marquez
Filing
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [12-41448 Affirmed ] Judge: PEH , Judge: JES , Judge: JEG Mandate pull date is 09/10/2013 for Appellant Daniel Villegas-Marquez; granting motion for summary affirmance filed by Appellant Mr. Daniel Villegas-Marquez [7349323-2] [12-41448]
Case: 12-41448
Document: 00512346807
Page: 1
Date Filed: 08/20/2013
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 12-41448
Conference Calendar
August 20, 2013
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
DANIEL VILLEGAS-MARQUEZ,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:12-CR-292-1
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
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, 133 S. Ct. 2374 (2013). In MoralesMota, 704 F.3d at 412, this court, relying upon its holding in United States v.
Joslin, 487 F. App’x 139, 141-43 (5th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 1847
(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
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
Case: 12-41448
Document: 00512346807
Page: 2
Date Filed: 08/20/2013
No. 12-41448
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.
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?