The Law Lion Logo - AI-powered legal writing assistantThe Law Lion
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

United States v. Alfredo Bautista-Villarreal

15-40698·Judge: Davis, Smith, Prado·Attorney: Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee., Alfredo Bautista-Villarreal, Big Spring, TX, pro se., Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.0 citations

No summary available for this case.

Opinions

Case: 15-40698 Document: 00513383325 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/17/2016

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-40698 Conference Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

FILED February 17, 2016 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ALFREDO BAUTISTA-VILLARREAL,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:14-CR-466-1

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Alfredo Bautista-Villarreal raises an argument that is foreclosed by United States v. Morales-Mota, 704 F.3d 410, 412 (5th Cir. 2013). In Morales-Mota, 704 F.3d at 412, we rejected the argument that the Texas offense of “burglary of a habitation” is broader than 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

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 15-40698 Document: 00513383325 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/17/2016

No. 15-40698

person with a “greater right to possession of the property than the actor.” Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2