
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Roman SALDIVAR-VASQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 16-40484 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed May 10, 2017
    Eileen K Wilson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Roman Saldivar-Vasquez, Pro Se
    Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Roman Saldivar-Vasquez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation following a felony conviction in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1). He argues that the district court plainly erred in assessing him a 16-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) (2015) due to his three prior Texas felony convictions for burglary of a habitation, in violation of Tex. Penal Code § 30.02(a)(1), which the district court characterized as crimes of violence. See United States v. Conde-Castaneda, 753 F.3d 172, 176 (5th Cir. 2014) (holding that § 30.02(a) is divisible and reiterating that offenses under § 30.02(a)(1) qualify as generic burglary). Saldivar-Velasquez argues that his convictions do not qualify as crimes of violence under § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) in light of Mathis v. United States, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 2243, 195 L.Ed.2d 604 (2016).

Because Saldivar-Vasquez did not object to the 16-level enhancement, our review is for plain error. United States v Chavez-Hernandez, 671 F.3d 494, 497 (5th Cir. 2012). To establish plain error, Saldivar-Vasquez must demonstrate a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009). If Saldivar-Vasquez makes such a showing, this court has the discretion to correct the error if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id.

This court recently revisited the holding in Conde-Castaneda in light of Mathis. See United States v. Uribe, 838 F.3d 667, 670 (5th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 1359, 197 L.Ed.2d 542 (2017). In Uribe, the court decided that § 30.02(a) “is elements-based, it is divisible and the modified categorical approach applies.” Uribe, 838 F.3d at 671. Thus, Conde-Castaneda remains binding precedent, and the district court did not err in treating Saldivar-Vas-quez’s Texas burglary convictions under § 30.02(a)(1) as crimes of violence.

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.
     