United States v. Felix Uribe, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 17860

Felix Uribe pleaded guilty to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326; his prior Texas conviction for burglary of a habitation (Tex. Penal Code § 30.02(a)) was used to impose a 16-level Sentencing Guidelines enhancement as a “crime of violence.”
The presentence report and district court applied U.S.S.G. § 2L2.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) based on the prior burglary conviction; Uribe objected to the enhancement.
Uribe’s judicial confession tracked language from both § 30.02(a)(1) (entry with intent to commit theft/felony) and § 30.02(a)(3) (entry and then commit/attempt theft/felony); the judgment did not specify which subsection was the basis for conviction.
This court previously held § 30.02(a)(1) matches the generic burglary-of-a-dwelling definition for guideline purposes (Murillo-Lopez; Conde-Castaneda).
The question on appeal was whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Mathis v. United States (addressing divisible statutes and the categorical/modified categorical approaches) requires overruling that precedent and thus precludes the enhancement.
The district court also stated it would have imposed the same sentence even if the enhancement were incorrect; the Fifth Circuit affirmed the enhancement and sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Mathis changes prior Fifth Circuit holdings that Tex. Penal Code § 30.02(a) is divisible and § 30.02(a)(1) matches generic burglary	Mathis requires treating § 30.02(a) as indivisible (means, not elements), so the modified categorical approach cannot be used and enhancement is invalid	§ 30.02(a) is elements-based (divisible); Mathis does not disturb Fifth Circuit precedent—court should apply modified categorical approach and find (a)(1) matches generic burglary	Mathis does not disturb the precedent; § 30.02(a) is elements-based/divisible and the modified categorical approach applies; enhancement affirmed
Whether Uribe’s judicial confession is sufficiently specific to identify a generic burglary predicate	Uribe: confession/judgment ambiguity prevents reliably identifying subsection supporting conviction	Government: confession and indictment track the language of (a)(1) and (a)(3); the record shows he effectively admitted (a)(1) conduct	Confession and record show admission of conduct matching § 30.02(a)(1); no ambiguity that would defeat enhancement

Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (distinguishes statutory "means" vs "elements" and guides when the modified categorical approach applies)
Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (definition of generic burglary for categorical approach)
United States v. Murillo-Lopez, 444 F.3d 337 (5th Cir. 2006) (held Tex. Penal Code § 30.02(a)(1) corresponds to generic burglary)
United States v. Conde-Castaneda, 753 F.3d 172 (5th Cir. 2014) (applied burglary-of-dwelling analysis under the Guidelines)
Day v. State, 532 S.W.2d 302 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975) (Texas Court of Criminal Appeals describing § 30.02 subdivisions as elements)
Devaughn v. State, 749 S.W.2d 62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (recognizing intent to commit theft/felony as an element under § 30.02(a)(1))