Background
Carlos Membreno-Lainez was convicted of illegal reentry by a previously deported alien after a felony conviction, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). His criminal history included a Texas conviction for aggravated robbery involving a deadly weapon.
On appeal, Membreno-Lainez argued for the first time that the Texas offense did not qualify as an aggravated felony under § 1326(b)(2). Because he had not raised that issue in the district court, he conceded that the Fifth Circuit could review it only for plain error.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the conviction. To obtain relief under plain-error review, Membreno-Lainez had to establish a forfeited error that was clear or obvious and affected his substantial rights; even then, correction would remain discretionary.
The court held that Membreno-Lainez failed to show a clear or obvious error because he cited no binding authority supporting his contention that the Texas aggravated-robbery conviction was not an aggravated felony under § 1326(b)(2). The court therefore rejected his appellate challenge without deciding whether the Texas offense in fact qualifies as an aggravated felony under a preserved standard of review.
Key Takeaways
- An unpreserved challenge to an illegal-reentry conviction is reviewed only for plain error.
- The absence of binding authority supporting the defendant’s position can be dispositive of whether an asserted error was clear or obvious.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed without definitively resolving whether Texas aggravated robbery involving a deadly weapon qualifies as an aggravated felony under § 1326(b)(2).
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the importance of preserving categorical-classification challenges in the district court. A defendant who first raises such an argument on appeal faces the demanding plain-error standard and may be unable to establish clear or obvious error without supporting circuit or Supreme Court precedent.
The opinion is also limited in substantive reach: it leaves open the underlying aggravated-felony classification question rather than establishing that the Texas offense necessarily qualifies under § 1326(b)(2).