Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Robert BAHENA, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-05-18
Citations: 689 F. App'x 362
Docket Number: No. 16-50818 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Robert BAHENA, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 689
Pages: 362–363

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Robert BAHENA, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
No. 16-50818 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 18, 2017
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Franklin Gordon Bynum, Bynum Law Office, P.L.L.C., Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Robert Bahena, Jr., appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. He contends that the district court plainly erred by sentencing him as a career offender pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 based on his Texas conviction for burglary of a habitation under Texas Penal Code § 30.02. Bahena argues that this conviction does not qualify as a crime of violence under § 4B1.1 in light of Mathis v. United States, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 2243, 195 L.Ed.2d 604 (2016).
The Government has filed an opposed motion for summary affirmance asserting that Bahena'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 Bahena's Mathis argument. See Uribe, 838 F.3d at 669-71. Accordingly, the Government's motion for summary af-firmance 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.