United States v. Membreno-Lainez

Case: 25-20442 Document: 63-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/24/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

No. 25-20442 FILED August 24, 2026 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Carlos Membreno-Lainez, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:25-CR-241-1 ______________________________ Before Barksdale, Willett, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Carlos Membreno-Lainez challenges his conviction for illegal reentry by a previously deported alien after a felony conviction, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). He asserts, for the first time on appeal, that his conviction is improper because his prior Texas conviction for aggravated Case: 25-20442 Document: 63-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/24/2026

No. 25-20442 robbery involving a deadly weapon did not qualify as an aggravated felony conviction under § 1326(b)(2).

Membreno did not preserve this issue in district court (which he also concedes). Therefore, review is only for plain error (as he again concedes).

E.g., United States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537, 546 (5th Cir. 2012). Under that standard, Membreno must show a forfeited plain error (clear-or-obvious error, rather than one subject to reasonable dispute) that affected his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes that showing, we have the discretion to correct the reversible plain error, but generally should do so only if it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings”. Id. (citation omitted).

Membreno fails to cite any binding authority in support of his § 1326(b)(2) contention. “In the plain error context, a lack of binding authority is often dispositive.” United States v. Jones, 88 F.4th 571, 573 (5th Cir. 2023) (citation omitted); see id. at 574 (requiring defendant “at least show error in . . . straightforward applications of existing cases” (citation omitted)). Accordingly, he fails to show the requisite clear-or-obvious error.

See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135.

AFFIRMED.