United States v. Bienvenido Ramirez-Leonardo

381 F. App'x 362
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJune 14, 2010
Docket09-40688
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 381 F. App'x 362 (United States v. Bienvenido Ramirez-Leonardo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Bienvenido Ramirez-Leonardo, 381 F. App'x 362 (5th Cir. 2010).

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Bienvenido Ramirez-Leonardo appeals the sentence imposed following his plea of guilty of importation of heroin. He argues that the factual basis for his plea did not establish that he knowingly imported a particular quantity of a particular drug into the United States, so his plea should be vacated. He correctly concedes, however, that that argument is foreclosed by United States v. Betancourt, 586 F.3d 303 (5th Cir.2009), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 1920, 176 L.Ed.2d 390 (2010) (No. 09-9048); he raises the argument solely to preserve its further review by the Supreme Court.

Ramirez-Leonardo additionally contends that the district court clearly erred in denying him a minor-role adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). Ramirez-Leonardo’s reliance on his alleged courier status, alone, is unavailing. See United States v. Martinez-Larraga, 517 F.3d 258, 272 (5th Cir.2008); United States v. Jenkins, 487 F.3d 279, 282 (5th Cir.2007). The unrebutted facts established that Ramirez-Leonardo imported a large amount of heroin into the United *363 States from the Dominican Republic; traveled a long distance with the heroin in hidden compartments in the soles of multiple pairs of his shoes; was to be paid a large sum of money for his role in the criminal activity; and was solely responsible for transporting the heroin to its final destination of New York. Based on the foregoing, it cannot be said that Ramirez-Leonardo was “peripheral to the advancement of the criminal activity” and thus a minor participant. See Martinez-Larraga, 517 F.Sd at 272.

AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cut R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ramirez-Leonardo v. United States
178 L. Ed. 2d 313 (Supreme Court, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
381 F. App'x 362, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-bienvenido-ramirez-leonardo-ca5-2010.