
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Alfredo ALVAREZ-SOTO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-41316
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    July 12, 2013.
    Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Michael Lance Herman, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Molly Estelle Odom, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before SMITH, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Alfredo Alvarez-Soto appeals his conviction and sentence for possession with intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana. He asserts that the district court plainly erred in imposing a career offender enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 because his prior Texas burglary of a habitation offenses were not crimes of violence under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2). He contends that the Texas offense is broader than generic burglary and, therefore, not “burglary of a dwelling” under § 4B1.2(a)(2), because Texas defines “owner” to include a person who has “a greater right to possession of the property than the actor.” Our precedent forecloses this argument. See United States v. Morales-Mota, 704 F.3d 410, 412 (5th Cir.2013).

Also foreclosed is Alvarez-Soto’s argument that, in light of Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646, 129 S.Ct. 1886, 173 L.Ed.2d 853 (2009), the district court plainly erred in accepting his guilty plea without sufficient proof that he knew the type and quantity of the controlled substance involved. See United States v. Betancourt, 586 F.3d 303, 308-09 (5th Cir.2009).

Alvarez-Soto concedes that his arguments are foreclosed and raises them to preserve them for further review. The Government’s motion for summary affir-mance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file an appellate brief is DENIED as unnecessary. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     