Case Information
*1 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)(1)(A)(ii) (2015) due to his three prior Texas felony convictions for burglary of a habitation, in violation of T EX . P ENAL C ODE *2 Case: 16-40484 Document: 00513987130 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/10/2017
No. 16-40484
§ 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)(1)(A)(ii) in light of Mathis v. United States , 136 S. Ct. 2243 (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 (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, 2017 WL 661924 (Mar. 20, 2017) (No. 16-7969) . 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-Vasquez’s Texas burglary convictions under § 30.02(a)(1) as crimes of violence.
AFFIRMED.
2
[*] Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.