USA v. Fatima Ledezma-Rodriguez

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [14-40584 Affirmed ] Judge: JES , Judge: JLW , Judge: JWE Mandate pull date is 03/24/2015 for Appellant Fatima Isabel Ledezma-Rodriguez [14-40584]

Case: 14-40584

Document: 00512955366

Page: 1

Date Filed: 03/03/2015

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-40584
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
March 3, 2015
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
FATIMA ISABEL LEDEZMA-RODRIGUEZ,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:13-CR-971
Before SMITH, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

Fatima Isabel Ledezma-Rodriguez was convicted of one count of illegal
reentry into the United States and was sentenced to serve 57 months in prison.
In this appeal, she raises two challenges to the district court’s conclusion that
her prior Texas conviction for burglary of a habitation was a crime of violence
(COV) for U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 purposes.

As she concedes, these claims are

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 14-40584

Document: 00512955366

Page: 2

Date Filed: 03/03/2015

No. 14-40584
reviewed for plain error only due to her failure to raise them in the district
court. See United States v. Garcia-Mendez, 420 F.3d 454, 456 (5th Cir. 2005).
To demonstrate plain error, Ledezma-Rodriguez must show a forfeited
error that is clear or obvious and that affects her substantial rights. See
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).

If she makes such a

showing, this court has the discretion to correct the error but will do so only if
it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial
proceedings. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135.
First,

Ledezma-Rodriguez

notes

that

the

Texas

theft

statute

encompasses conduct broader than the generic, contemporary definition of
theft because this statute includes theft by deception. Because this statute is
implicated by her burglary conviction, she argues, her burglary conviction does
not amount to a COV. We recently rejected the argument that Texas theft is
not equivalent to a generic theft offense due to the theft by deception provision
of Texas Penal Code § 31.03(a). See United States v. Rodriguez-Salazar, 768
F.3d 437, 438 (5th Cir. 2014). This argument is thus unavailing. See id.
Next, Ledezma-Rodriguez argues that the Texas statutory definition of
an “owner,” which includes a person who has “a greater right to possession of
the property than the actor,” Texas Penal Code § 30.02(a)(1) broader than the
generic, contemporary meaning of the enumerated offense of “burglary of a
dwelling.” As she concedes, this argument is foreclosed. See United States v.
Morales-Mota, 704 F.3d 410, 412 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 2374 (2013).
AFFIRMED.

2