
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jorge OLALDE-GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 15-10869
    Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed February 10, 2017
    Timothy W. Funnell, Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Kevin Joel Page, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before REAYLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PER CURIAM:

The Supreme Court granted Jorge Olalde-Gonzalez’s petition for writ of cer-tiorari, vacated this court’s judgment, and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Mathis v. United States, — U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 2243, 195 L.Ed.2d 604 (2016). See Olalde-Gonzalez v. United States, — U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 296, 196 L.Ed.2d 209 (2016) (mem.). While the defendant raised multiple contentions on appeal, the only issue presented in light of Mathis is whether the district court plainly erred by enhancing the defendant’s sentence based on a prior Texas burglary conviction. Prior to Mathis, the defendant conceded that his argument was foreclosed by United States v. Conde-Castaneda, 753 F.3d 172 (5th Cir. 2014). See United States v. Olalde-Gonzalez, 642 Fed.Appx. 426, 428 (5th Cir. 2016).

The Fifth Circuit has since confronted the issue of whether Mathis “disturbs Conde-Castaneda,” and we held “that it does not.” United States v. Uribe, 838 F.3d 667, 670 (5th Cir. 2016). Following Uribe, we held this case in abeyance while the Uribe defendant sought en banc review. Thé petition for rehearing en banc was denied on January 30, 2017, and this case is ripe for disposition. Uribe controls. Accordingly, the sentence is 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47,5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     