Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Francisco DIAZ-SIERRA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-05-05
Citations: 689 F. App'x 284
Docket Number: No. 15-41662 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Francisco DIAZ-SIERRA, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and CLEMENT and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 689
Pages: 284–285

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Francisco DIAZ-SIERRA, Defendant-Appellant
No. 15-41662 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed May 5, 2017
Amy Howell Alaniz, 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
Francisco Diaz-Sierra, Pro Se
Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and CLEMENT and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Francisco Diaz-Sierra pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after removal and was sentenced to 46 months of imprisonment. On appeal, he argues that the district court erred by applying the crime-of-violence enhancement in U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) (2015) based on his prior Texas conviction for burglary of a habitation. We review the district court's interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo and its findings of fact for clear error. United States v. Njoku, 737 F.3d 55, 75 (5th Cir. 2013).
Diaz was convicted of burglary under Texas Penal Code § 30.02. Section 30.02 is a divisible statute, and we have held that a violation of § 30.02(a)(1) constitutes generic burglary of a dwelling for purposes of the crime of violence enhancement. See United States v. Uribe, 838 F.3d 667, 670-71 (5th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 1359, 197 L.Ed.2d 542 (2017); § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) & comment. (n.l(B)(iii)) (2015). Because the state court documents reflect that Diaz pleaded guilty to an offense under § 30.02(a)(1), the district court did not err in applying the crime-of-violence enhancement. See Uribe, 838 F.3d at 671.
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.