USA v. Francisco Millan-Arteaga
Filing
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [13-40851 Affirmed ] Judge: ECP , Judge: JWE , Judge: CH Mandate pull date is 05/07/2014 for Appellant Francisco Ivan Millan-Arteaga; granting motion for summary affirmance filed by Appellant Mr. Francisco Ivan Millan-Arteaga [7513522-2] [13-40851]
Case: 13-40851
Document: 00512597938
Page: 1
Date Filed: 04/16/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-40851
Conference Calendar
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 16, 2014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
v.
FRANCISCO IVAN MILLAN-ARTEAGA, also known as Francisco Ivan
Millan-Artega,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:13-CR-690-1
Before PRADO, ELROD, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Francisco Ivan MillanArteaga 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 Morales-Mota, 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States v. Joslin, 487 F. App’x 139, 141-43 (5th Cir. 2012) (unpublished), cert.
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 13-40851
Document: 00512597938
Page: 2
Date Filed: 04/16/2014
No. 13-40851
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 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.”
Accordingly, 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?