USA v. Jose Cedillo, No. 13-20205 (5th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on January 20, 2014.

Download PDF
Case: 13-20205 Document: 00512473251 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/17/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 13-20205 Conference Calendar December 17, 2013 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. ยง 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