United States v. Talamantes-Romero

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: September 29, 2025
• Docket: 24-50266
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 24-50254 Document: 90-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/29/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit _____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 24-50254 consolidated with FILED No. 24-50266 September 29, 2025 _____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Luis Antonio Talamantes-Romero,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC Nos. 5:20-CR-159-1, 5:20-CR-81-1 ______________________________

Before Elrod, Chief Judge, and Clement and Haynes, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Luis Antonio Talamantes-Romero pleaded guilty to illegal reentry subsequent to removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The basic illegal reentry crime in § 1326(a) sets a maximum punishment of two years of imprisonment. Id. If a defendant’s removal was subsequent to a conviction for a non-aggravated felony, § 1326(b)(1) sets a maximum punishment of ten _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 24-50254 Document: 90-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/29/2025

24-50254 c/w No. 24-50266

years of imprisonment. Id. If a defendant’s removal was subsequent to a conviction for an aggravated felony, § 1326(b)(2) sets a maximum punishment of twenty years of imprisonment. Id. In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, the Supreme Court held that the enhancements in § 1326(b) are sentencing enhancements rather than elements of the offense and therefore do not need to be alleged in an indictment or found beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury. 523 U.S. 224, 239, 247 (1998). In this case, the presentence investigation report (“PSR”) recommended that the district court impose a statutory maximum penalty of twenty years of imprisonment under § 1326(b)(2). Talamantes-Romero objected to the enhanced sentence and argued the § 1326(b) enhancement violates his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights but acknowledged that his argument was foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres. The district court adopted the PSR and sentenced Talamantes-Romero to twenty years in prison with three years of supervised release. The district court also revoked Talamantes-Romero’s supervised release from a previous conviction and sentenced him to two years of imprisonment to run concurrently with the twenty-year sentence. Talamantes-Romero timely appealed both the sentence and the revocation. Talamantes-Romero’s sole argument on appeal is that the § 1326(b) enhancement is unconstitutional. Talamantes-Romero concedes this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres but wishes to preserve the issue for review by the Supreme Court. He filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance. Because the argument is foreclosed, see United States v. Pervis, 937 F.3d 546, 553–54 (5th Cir. 2019), summary disposition is appropriate, see United States v. Garza-De La Cruz, 16 F.4th 1213, 1213–14 (5th Cir. 2021) (per curiam); Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir.

2 Case: 24-50254 Document: 90-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/29/2025

1969). Further, because Talamantes-Romero does not challenge the revocation judgment on appeal, that challenge is abandoned and unreviewable. See United States v. Martinez, 131 F.4th 294, 318 (5th Cir. 2025). Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment and revocation order of the district court are AFFIRMED.