USA v. Jesus Ramirez, Jr., No. 13-50125 (5th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 13-50125 Document: 00512524994 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/06/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 13-50125 Summary Calendar FILED February 6, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee v. JESUS RAMIREZ, JR., Defendant - Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:10-CR-326-1 Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jesus Ramirez, Jr., challenges the two-year prison sentence imposed following revocation of his supervised release. As he did at sentencing, he challenges the reasonableness of the sentence, claiming it is greater than necessary to effectuate sentencing goals, overstates the seriousness of his supervised-release violations, and does not reflect his personal circumstances. Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * Case: 13-50125 Document: 00512524994 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/06/2014 No. 13-50125 Revocation sentences are reviewed under a deferential plainly unreasonable standard, in a two-step process . United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 326 (5th Cir. 2013) (citing United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir. 2011)). First considered is whether the district court procedurally erred; then, the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed. Warren, 720 F.3d at 326. Ramirez does not claim procedural error. For the second step, a preserved objection to a sentence s substantive reasonableness is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, examining the totality of the circumstances . Id. at 332 (citation omitted). A sentence is substantively unreasonable if it (1) does not account for a factor that should have received significant weight, (2) gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or (3) represents a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors. Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Even if we determine a revocation sentence is unreasonable, we may reverse only if the error was obvious under existing law . Id. at 326 (citation omitted). Ramirez two-year sentence equaled the maximum statutory term of imprisonment the district court could have imposed. See 18 U.S.C. § 553(a); 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(3); 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). We often uphold statutorymaximum sentences under the above-described plainly-unreasonable standard. See Warren, 720 F.3d at 332. The district court considered the factors Ramirez believes merit a lesser sentence. Nevertheless, [t]he district court made clear its belief that, in [the] light of [Ramirez ] particular history [and characteristics], only a relatively severe, incarcerative revocation sentence was sufficient punishment . Warren, 720 F.3d at 333. Ramirez disagreement with the court s weighing of the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors does not demonstrate the imposed 2 Case: 13-50125 Document: 00512524994 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/06/2014 No. 13-50125 sentence was an abuse of discretion. The court was permitted to use its judgment in weighing the applicable factors, and this court may not reweigh them. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51-52, 56-60 (2007). AFFIRMED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
