United States v. Ulysses Ramos

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Ulysses Ramos

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 9, 2020

Docket19-50348

StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Ulysses Ramos (United States v. Ulysses Ramos) 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. Ulysses Ramos, (9th Cir. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 9 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 19-50348

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:13-cr-01240-L-2

v. MEMORANDUM* ULYSSES RAMOS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California M. James Lorenz, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 2, 2020**

Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Ulysses Ramos appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the

24-month sentence imposed upon his fourth revocation of supervised release. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Ramos contends that the district court impermissibly considered

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). rehabilitative purposes in determining the length of his sentence. See Tapia v.

United States, 564 U.S. 319, 335 (2011) (district courts are precluded from

imposing or lengthening a sentence to promote rehabilitation); United States v.

Grant, 664 F.3d 276, 280 (9th Cir. 2011) (applying Tapia to sentences imposed on

revocation of supervised release). We review for plain error, see Grant, 664 F.3d

at 279, and conclude there is none. Although the district court expressed concern

about the danger Ramos poses to himself and discussed the availability of

rehabilitation programs in prison, the record does not suggest that the court

imposed or lengthened the sentence to promote rehabilitation. See Tapia, 564 U.S.

at 334 (a district court does not run afoul of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(a) by “discussing the

opportunities for rehabilitation within prison”).

AFFIRMED.

2 19-50348

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