22-994-cr United States v. Romero

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 1st day of March, two thousand twenty-four.

PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges. ------------------------------------------------------------------ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v. No. 22-994-cr

EDWIN MANOLO ROMERO, AKA SEALED DEFENDANT 1,

Defendant-Appellant. ------------------------------------------------------------------ FOR APPELLEE: STEPHANIE SIMON, Assistant United States Attorney (Stephen J. Ritchin, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), for Damian Williams, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY

FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: JEREMIAH DONOVAN, Law Offices of Jeremiah Donovan, Old Saybrook, CT

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the

Southern District of New York (Cathy Seibel, Judge).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,

AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.

Defendant-Appellant Edwin Manolo Romero appeals from an April 26,

2022 judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of

New York (Seibel, J.) convicting him, after a guilty plea, of illegally reentering the

United States after having been removed subsequent to a conviction for

commission of a felony, in violation of

(a) and (b)(1). On appeal,

Romero argues that his counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to

advise him to delay the resolution of his separate state-court proceedings until

the completion of his sentencing in the current case in order to avoid increasing

2 his offense level. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts

and the record of prior proceedings, to which we refer only as necessary to

explain our decision to affirm.

In reviewing an ineffective assistance claim raised on direct appeal “we

may: (1) decline to hear the claim, permitting the appellant to raise the issue as

part of a subsequent petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

; (2) remand the claim to the district court for necessary factfinding; or (3)

decide the claim on the record before us.” United States v. Ramos,

(2d Cir. 2012) (quotation marks omitted). Given our “baseline aversion to

resolving ineffectiveness claims on direct review,” United States v. Morris,

(2d Cir. 2003) (quotation marks omitted); see United States v. Khedr,

(2d Cir. 2003) (noting that an “allegedly ineffective attorney should

generally be given the opportunity to explain the conduct at issue”), we exercise

our discretion to decline to review Romero’s claim. Accordingly, and without

expressing any view on the merits of Romero’s claim, we permit Romero to raise

his ineffective assistance of counsel claim pursuant to

. See

Morris,

.

We have considered Romero’s remaining arguments and conclude that

3 they are without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District

Court is AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court

4