United States v. Jose Cedillo ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 13-20205       Document: 00512473251         Page: 1     Date Filed: 12/17/2013
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    December 17, 2013
    No. 13-20205
    Conference Calendar                      Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee
    v.
    JOSE DE JESUS CEDILLO, also known as Jesus Costillos, also known as Jesus
    Cedillo, also known as Guadalupe Alvarado, also known as Juan Manuel
    Gonzalez, also known as Juan Manuel Gonzales, also known as Jesus Costilla,
    also known as Jesus Sidillo, also known as Jose DeJesus Cedillo, also known as
    Jose Cedillo, also known as Jose De Jesus Edillo, also known as Adrian
    Hernandez, also known as Jesus Marvel, also known as Jose Quiroz,
    Defendant-Appellant
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. 4:12-CR-683-1
    Before DAVIS, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Jose De Jesus Cedillo 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-
    *
    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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 13-20205     Document: 00512473251     Page: 2   Date Filed: 12/17/2013
    No. 13-20205
    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), 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
    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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-20205

Judges: Davis, Dennis, Clement

Filed Date: 12/17/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024