Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Orlando Franco-Alarcon raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v. Rodriguez-Salazar, 768 F.3d 437, 437-38 (5th Cir. 2014), and United States v. Morales-Mota, 704 F.3d 410, 412 (5th Cir. 2013). In Rodriguez-Salazar, we rejected the argument that the Texas offense of theft is broader than the generic, contemporary definition of theft because the Texas offense, which includes theft by deception, may be committed by taking property with the owner’s consent. Rodriguez-Salazar, 768 F.3d at 437-38. In Morales-Mota, we rejected the argument that the Texas offense of “burglary of a habitation” is broader than the generic, contemporary definition of “burglary of a dwelling” under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) because it defines the “owner” of a habitation as a person with a “greater right to possession of the property than the actor.” Morales-Mota, 704 F.3d at 412. Accordingly, the unopposed motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.