Robert Bahena, Jr., appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea *363 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.