
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Emilio Sosa VELASQUEZ, also known as Emilliano Velasquez Sosa, also known as Emilio Sosa-Velasquez, also known as Emiliano Sosa, also known as Julio Emiliano Velasquez-Sosa, also known as Emiliano Velasquez, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 16-20127 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed May 3, 2017
    Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Emilio Sosa Velasquez, Pro Se
    Before JONES; WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Emilio Sosa Velasquez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation following an aggravated felony conviction in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). He argues that the district court erred in assessing him a 16-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) (2015) due to his prior Texas conviction for burglary of a habitation, in violation of Texas Penal Code § 30.02(a)(1), which the district court characterized as a crime 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). Velasquez argues that this conviction does not qualify as a crime of violence under § 2Ll,2(b)(l)(A)(ii) in light of Mathis v. United States, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 2243, 195 L.Ed.2d 604 (2016).

The Government has filed an opposed motion for summary affirmance asserting that Velasquez’s arguments are foreclosed by our recent decision in United States v. Uribe, 838 F.3d 667, 671 (5th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 1359, 197 L.Ed.2d 542 (2017). In the alternative, the Government requests an extension of time in which to file a brief on the merits.

The Government is correct that Uribe forecloses Velasquez’s Mathis argument. See Uribe, 838 F.3d at 669-71. Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary af-firmance 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. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     