United States v. Kareem Ramos, No. 11-3404 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Sentence was reasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 11-3404 ___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Southern * District of Iowa. Kareem E. Ramos, also known as * Kareem R. Ramos, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. * ___________ Submitted: May 31, 2012 Filed: June 5, 2012 ___________ Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Kareem Ramos directly appeals the below-Guidelines-range sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to attempting to entice a minor to engage in sexual activities, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), and possessing child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B). His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief citing Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. To the extent the Anders brief may be read as challenging the reasonableness of Ramos s sentence, we conclude the argument fails. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (describing method for undertaking appellate review of sentences); United States v. Moore, 581 F.3d 681, 684 (8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (where district court has sentenced defendant below advisory Guidelines range, it is nearly inconceivable that court abused its discretion in not varying downward further). Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, we affirm. We also grant counsel leave to withdraw, subject to counsel informing Ramos about the procedures for seeking rehearing and petitioning for a writ of certiorari. ______________________________ -2-
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.
