Case ID: f-appx_690/html/0264-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Javier GARZA-FLORES, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 16-40698 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed June 8, 2017
    John A. Reed, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S, Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Stephen W. Byrne, Corpus Christi, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
    Javier Garza-Flores, Pro Se
    Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Javier Garza-Flores appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation. He contends that the district court erred in increasing his offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) based on his prior Texas conviction for burglary of a habitation under Texas Penal Code § 30.02. Garza-Flores 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).

The Government has filed an opposed motion for summary affirmance asserting that Garza-Flores’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 Garza-Flores’s Mathis argument. See Uribe, 838 F.3d at 669-71. Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47,5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.