
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benito GOMEZ-JIMENEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-41620 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed May 22, 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, Evan Gray Howze, Assistant Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Sokolow, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office,-Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. .
   PER CURIAM:

Benito Gomez-Jimenez appeals the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea and conviction for being found in the United States without permission, following removal. He contends that the district court erred by enhancing his sentence under United States Sentencing Guideline § L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) (2015) based on a determination that his conviction for burglary of a habitation under Texas Penal Code § 30.02 was equivalent to a conviction for the generic offense of “burglary of a dwelling,” which was enumerated in the application notes accompanying § 2L1.2 as a “crime of violence.” Gomez-Jimenez argues that, in light of Mathis v. United States, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 2243, 195 L.Ed.2d 604 (2016), § 30.02 defines a single indivisible offense too broad to meet the generic definition of burglary of a dwelling, and that the district court erred when it narrowed his offense of conviction using the modified categorical approach.

In United States v. Conde-Castaneda, 753 F.3d 172, 175-76 (5th Cir. 2014), this court held that § 30.02 is a divisible statute and that courts may apply the modified categorical approach to determine which of the three subsections in § 30.02(a) formed the basis of a defendant’s conviction. This court reaffirmed that decision in United States v. Uribe, 838 F.3d 667, 669-71 (5th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 1359, 197 L.Ed.2d 542 (2017), specifically determining that Mathis did not alter its prior holding. Although Gomez-Jimenez contends that Uribe was wrongly decided, he concedes that his argument is foreclosed by that decision.

Accordingly, Gomez-Jimenez’s motion for summary disposition is GRANTED 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R, 47,5.4.
     