United States v. Felipe Ramirez

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Felipe Ramirez

845 F.3d 578, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 19831, 2016 WL 6541550

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedNovember 3, 2016

Docket16-10109 Summary Calendar

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 845 F.3d 578 (United States v. Felipe Ramirez) 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. Felipe Ramirez, 845 F.3d 578, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 19831, 2016 WL 6541550 (5th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Felipe Martinez Ramirez was convicted of one count of producing child pornography and was sentenced to serve 210 months in prison and ten years on supervised release. In the sole issue raised in this appeal, he argues that his sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable because U.S.S.G. § 2G2.1 lacks an empirical basis.

As Martinez Ramirez acknowledges, this argument is unavailing under United *579 States v. Miller, 665 F.3d 114, 121-22 (5th Cir. 2011), which involved U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2. In Miller, we explained that we “will not reject a Guidelines provision as unreasonable or irrational simply because it is not based on empirical data and even if it leads to some disparities in sentencing.” 665 F.3d at 121-22. Instead, we follow the logic that “Empirically based or not, the Guidelines remain the Guidelines.” Id. at 121. The same logic controls here, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Although the logic of Miller is controlling, since it involves a different Guideline than that at issue here, we decline to grant summary disposition. Nonetheless, because Martinez Ramirez is not entitled to relief, there is no need for further briefing. Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance and, in the alternative, an extension of time to file its brief, is DENIED.

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

PER CURIAM:

Felipe Martinez Ramirez was convicted of one count of producing child pornography and was sentenced to serve 210 months in prison and ten years on supervised release. In the sole issue raised in this appeal, he argues that his sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable because U.S.S.G. § 2G2.1 lacks an empirical basis.

As Martinez Ramirez acknowledges, this argument is unavailing under United *579 States v. Miller, 665 F.3d 114, 121-22 (5th Cir. 2011), which involved U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2. In Miller, we explained that we “will not reject a Guidelines provision as unreasonable or irrational simply because it is not based on empirical data and even if it leads to some disparities in sentencing.” 665 F.3d at 121-22. Instead, we follow the logic that “Empirically based or not, the Guidelines remain the Guidelines.” Id. at 121. The same logic controls here, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Although the logic of Miller is controlling, since it involves a different Guideline than that at issue here, we decline to grant summary disposition. Nonetheless, because Martinez Ramirez is not entitled to relief, there is no need for further briefing. Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance and, in the alternative, an extension of time to file its brief, is DENIED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

845 F.3d 578, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 19831, 2016 WL 6541550, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-felipe-ramirez-ca5-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack