Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 14 views

    United States v. Ramirez-Flores, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Juan Jose Ramirez-Flores' conviction and 90-month sentence for illegal re-entry after deportation for an aggravated felony. Ramirez-Flores argued that his lengthy criminal record was due to drug and alcohol addictions rather than malice, but the district court considered this argument and declined to depart from the applicable guideline range in sentencing him. The appellate court found no error in the calculation of the guideline range or in the district court's decision not to depart. The conviction and sentence were therefore affirmed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Ramirez-Flores, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    14 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Juan Jose Ramirez-Flores' conviction and 90-month sentence for illegal re-entry after deportation for an aggravated felony. Ramirez-Flores argued that his lengthy criminal record was due to drug and alcohol addictions rather than malice, but the district court considered this argument and declined to depart from the applicable guideline range in sentencing him. The appellate court found no error in the calculation of the guideline range or in the district court's decision not to depart. The conviction and sentence were therefore affirmed.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-06-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 01-4788

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Juan Jose Ramirez-Flores' conviction and 90-month sentence for illegal re-entry after deportation for an aggravated felony. Ramirez-Flores argued that his lengthy criminal record was due to drug and alcohol addictions rather than malice, but the district court considered this argument and declined to depart from the applicable guideline range in sentencing him. The appellate court found no error in the calculation of the guideline range or in the district court's decision not to depart. The conviction and sentence were therefore affirmed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    14 views3 pages

    United States v. Ramirez-Flores, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Juan Jose Ramirez-Flores' conviction and 90-month sentence for illegal re-entry after deportation for an aggravated felony. Ramirez-Flores argued that his lengthy criminal record was due to drug and alcohol addictions rather than malice, but the district court considered this argument and declined to depart from the applicable guideline range in sentencing him. The appellate court found no error in the calculation of the guideline range or in the district court's decision not to depart. The conviction and sentence were therefore affirmed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
    JUAN JOSE RAMIREZ-FLORES, a/k/a
    Raul Alfredo Ramirez-Del Rio,
    Defendant-Appellant.

    No. 01-4788

    Appeal from the United States District Court


    for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.
    Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge.
    (CR-00-375)
    Submitted: June 13, 2002
    Decided: June 21, 2002
    Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    COUNSEL
    Lisa S. Costner, LISA S. COSTNER, P.A., Winston-Salem, North
    Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney,
    Arnold L. Husser, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro,
    North Carolina, for Appellee.

    UNITED STATES v. RAMIREZ-FLORES

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See


    Local Rule 36(c).

    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Juan Jose Ramirez-Flores appeals his ninety month sentence
    imposed pursuant to his conviction upon a guilty plea to one count of
    illegal re-entry after deportation for an aggravated felony in violation
    of 8 U.S.C.A. 1362(a) & (b)(2). (West Supp. 2001). RamirezFlores counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising one possible sentencing issue on
    appeal but stating that, in her view, there are no meritorious issues for
    appeal. Ramirez-Flores was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has failed to do so.
    At sentencing Ramirez-Flores requested a shorter sentence because
    his rather lengthy criminal record was the result of his drug and alcohol addictions rather than malice. The court considered this ground
    but elected not to depart, and chose to sentence him in approximately
    the middle of the applicable guideline range. Where the sentencing
    court was aware of its authority to depart and simply declined to do
    so, we lack authority to review its decision. See United States v.
    Bayerle, 898 F.2d 28, 31 (4th Cir. 1990). We further lack the authority to review sentencing within the applicable guideline range if no
    error is alleged in the calculation of that range. 18 U.S.C.A. 3742
    (West Supp. 2001); United States v. Porter, 909 F.2d 789, 794 (4th
    Cir. 1990).
    In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in
    this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Ramirez-Flores conviction and sentence. This court
    requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the
    client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such
    a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for
    leave to withdraw from representation. Counsels motion must state
    that a copy thereof was served on the client.

    UNITED STATES v. RAMIREZ-FLORES

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
    argument would not aid in the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like