Case: 12-40300 Document: 00512152119 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/22/2013
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
February 22, 2013
No. 12-40300
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
PEDRO CAMPOS-CONTRERAS, also known as Pedro Mauricio Campos-
Contreras,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:11-CR-1011-1
Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendant-Appellant Pedro Campos-Contreras appeals the sentence
imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being found in the United States
after a previous deportation. He claims that the district court plainly erred in
imposing a 16-level enhancement for committing a crime of violence, pursuant
to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii), based on Campos-Contreras’s Texas convictions
for burglary of a habitation with intent to commit theft. He contends that
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 12-40300 Document: 00512152119 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/22/2013
No. 12-40300
because his convictions fall under Texas’s unique “greater right to possession”
theory, they do not constitute generic burglary convictions under Taylor v.
United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990), and therefore were not convictions for
burglary of a dwelling under § 2L1.2. As Campos-Contreras did not raise this
objection in the district court, our review is limited to plain error. See United
States v. Chavez-Hernandez, 671 F.3d 494, 497-99 (5th Cir. 2012); see also
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).
We recently rejected this same contention in United States v.
Morales-Mota, ___ F.3d ___, 2013 WL 104935 (5th Cir. Jan. 9, 2013) (No.
12-40491) (affirming a 16-level sentencing enhancement under §
2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) based on a Texas conviction for burglary of a habitation under
§ 30.02(a)). Accordingly, the district court’s 16-level enhancement in this case
was not error, plain or otherwise.
AFFIRMED.
2