Michael Wayne Davis, Jr., appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for possession of firearms and ammunition by a convicted felon. Applying the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) enhancement, the district court sentenced Davis to 180 months of imprisonment.

Davis argues on appeal that he is not subject to the ACCA enhancement because the Louisiana offense of unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling is not a violent felony as defined by the ACCA, and that the ACCA’s residual clause is constitutionally void for vagueness. The Government has filed a motion for a summary affirmance, or, alternatively, for an extension of time within which to file a brief, contending that Davis’s arguments are foreclosed by circuit precedent. The Government correctly concedes that Davis’s appeal waiver does not bar his appeal. See United States v. House, 394 Fed.Appx. 122, 124 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v. Harris, 434 F.3d 767, 770 (5th Cir. 2005).

With respect to Davis’s first argument, we have held that the crime of unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling under Louisiana law involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another. See United States v. O’Connor, 632 F.3d 894, 898 (5th Cir. 2011). Although O’Connor addressed whether unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling was a crime of violence for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2, id., we have “previously applied our holdings under the residual clause of the ACCA to analyze the definition of crimes of violence under § 4B1.2, and vice versa.” United States v. Hughes, 602 F.3d 669, 673 n. 1 (5th Cir. 2010). In a recent unpublished decision, we concluded that an intervening Supreme Court decision did not overrule O’Connor and held that the Louisiana unauthorized entry offense was a violent felony under the ACCA United States v. Arteaga, 436 Fed.Appx. 343, 350-51 (5th Cir. 2011). *474 While the parties contend that Arteaga forecloses Davis’s argument, that decision is not precedent. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. Nevertheless, given the holding of O’Connor and the persuasive analysis in Arteaga, we agree with the parties that Davis’s argument fails. Davis’s constitutional challenge to the ACCA is foreclosed, as he concedes. See James v. United States, 550 U.S. 192, 210 n. 6, 127 S.Ct. 1586, 167 L.Ed.2d 532 (2007); United States v. Gore, 636 F.3d 728, 742 (5th Cir. 2011).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is DENIED, and its alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED as unnecessary.