
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Carlos Alejandro OLIVO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-51309
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Nov. 30, 2009.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      M. Carolyn Fuentes, Henry Joseph Bemporad, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, John Richard Carter, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Carlos Alejandro Olivo appeals his enhanced sentence following a guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e)(1). Olivo argues that the district court plainly erred by sentencing him as an armed career criminal because one of the convictions used to enhance his sentence, a 1992 Texas conviction for burglary of a habitation, is not a violent felony within the meaning of § 924(e)(1). He also argues that § 922(g) is unconstitutional under United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995); however, he properly concedes that this issue is foreclosed by this circuit’s precedent. See United States v. De Leon, 170 F.3d 494, 499 (5th Cir.1999).

In response to Olivo’s challenge to the propriety of his enhanced sentence, the Government has supplemented the record with a written stipulation of testimony entered by Olivo in connection with his guilty plea to the 1992 burglary charge. See Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 16, 125 S.Ct. 1254, 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005); United States v. Garcia-Arellano, 522 F.3d 477, 481 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S.-, 129 S.Ct. 353, 172 L.Ed.2d 138 (2008). Olivo’s stipulation makes it clear that his prior offense was a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act. See United States v. Constante, 544 F.3d 584, 585-87 (5th Cir.2008); Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.02(a)(1), (3) (Vernon 1989).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     