
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jorge BACIO-GONZALES, also known as Jorge Bacio-Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 16-40663 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed June 1, 2017
    Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Philip G. Gallagher, Michael Lance Herman, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Federal Public Defender’s. Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Jorge Bacio-Gonzales appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for reentry of a deported alien. He contends that the district court erred in increasing his offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) (2015) based on his prior Texas felony convictions for burglary of a habitation under Texas Penal Code § 30.02(a). Bacio-Gonzales argues, under Mathis v. United States, — U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 2243, 195 L.Ed.2d 604 (2016); that the Texas burglary statute is not divisible and that not every violation of § 30.02(a) qualifies as a crime of violence under § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) (2015).

The Government has filed an opposed motion for summary affirmance asserting that Bacio-Gonzales’s arguments are foreclosed by our recent decision in United States v. Uribe, 838 F.3d 667 (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 Bacio-Gonzales’s Mathis argument. See Uribe, 838 F.3d at 669-71. Accordingly, the motion for summary affir-mance 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47,5.4.
     