Elmer Neiva-Orejuela was sentenced to 41 months of imprisonment, following his guilty plea to illegal reentry after removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He contends the district court erred by applying the 16-level crime-of-violence enhancement, based on his prior Texas conviction for burglary of a . habitation. U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) (2015 ed.)

Although post -Booker, the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory only, the district court must avoid significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating the Guidelines sentencing range. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 48-51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). If no such procedural error exists, a properly preserved objection to an ultimate sentence is reviewed for substantive reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. at 51, 128 S.Ct, 586; United States v. Delgado-Martinez, 564 F.3d 750, 751-53 (5th Cir. 2009). In that respect, for issues preserved in district court, its application of the Guidelines is reviewed de novo; its factual findings, only for clear error, E.g., United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008).

Neiva was convicted of burglary under Texas Penal Code § 30.02, a divisible statute. 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). Therefore, under the modified categorical approach, the court may consider certain state-court documents. Id.

Those documents demonstrate that Neiva pleaded guilty under § 30.02(a)(1), which, for purposes of the crime-of-violence enhancement, constitutes generic burglary of a dwelling. Id. Accordingly, the court did not err in applying the enhancement. See U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) (2015 ed.); Uribe, 838 F.3d at 671.

AFFIRMED.