United States v. Eduardo Ramos-Rodriguez

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Eduardo Ramos-Rodriguez

703 F. App'x 560

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedNovember 20, 2017

Docket16-10394, 16-10438

StatusUnpublished

This text of 703 F. App'x 560 (United States v. Eduardo Ramos-Rodriguez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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. Eduardo Ramos-Rodriguez, 703 F. App'x 560 (9th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

In these consolidated appeals, Eduardo Ramos-Rodriguez appeals the 27-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the partially consecutive 21-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. In Appeal No. 16-10438, we dismiss. In Appeal No. 16-10394, we affirm.

Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Harris, 628 F.3d 1203, 1205 (9th Cir. 2011), we conclude that Appeal No, 16-10438 is barred by a valid appeal waiver. The terms of the appeal waiver in Ramos-Rodriguez’s disposition agreement unambiguously encompass the claims raised in this appeal. See id. Moreover, contrary to Ramos-Rodriguez’s contention, the record reflects that he waived his appellate rights knowingly and voluntarily. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-87 (9th Cir. 2009).

In Appeal No. 16-10394, Ramos-Rodriguez argues that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider his sentencing arguments and explain the sentence. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The record reflects that the district court considered Ramos-Rodriguez’s arguments and sufficiently explained the within-Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, contrary to Ramos-Rodriguez’s contention, the sentence is not an abuse of discretion in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including his significant immigration history. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

Appeal No. 16-10394: AFFIRMED.

Appeal No. 16-10438: DISMISSED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,

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

MEMORANDUM **

In these consolidated appeals, Eduardo Ramos-Rodriguez appeals the 27-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the partially consecutive 21-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. In Appeal No. 16-10438, we dismiss. In Appeal No. 16-10394, we affirm.

Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Harris, 628 F.3d 1203, 1205 (9th Cir. 2011), we conclude that Appeal No, 16-10438 is barred by a valid appeal waiver. The terms of the appeal waiver in Ramos-Rodriguez’s disposition agreement unambiguously encompass the claims raised in this appeal. See id. Moreover, contrary to Ramos-Rodriguez’s contention, the record reflects that he waived his appellate rights knowingly and voluntarily. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-87 (9th Cir. 2009).

In Appeal No. 16-10394, Ramos-Rodriguez argues that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider his sentencing arguments and explain the sentence. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The record reflects that the district court considered Ramos-Rodriguez’s arguments and sufficiently explained the within-Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, contrary to Ramos-Rodriguez’s contention, the sentence is not an abuse of discretion in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including his significant immigration history. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

Appeal No. 16-10394: AFFIRMED.

Appeal No. 16-10438: DISMISSED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

703 F. App'x 560, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-eduardo-ramos-rodriguez-ca9-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack