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 *265 to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.