United States v. Ramos, No. 15-1592 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant Mary Ann Ramos and her son, Earl James, were convicted on several drug-distribution counts. Defendants raised several issues on appeal. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support Mary's conviction where the evidence was sufficient to show that Mary knew the specific features of á-PVP that make it a controlled substance. In this case, the evidence allowed the jury to infer Mary’s knowledge of the specific features of the substance that make it a controlled substance analogue, and she understood the pharmacological effects of the substance. Because the district court correctly applied the guidelines and because the expert's testimony supported the district court’s factual conclusion that THC was the most similar substance to the synthetic cannabinoids at issue, the court found no clear error in the application of the 1:167 marijuana-equivalency ratio and, therefore, the determination of defendants’ base offense levels. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction and sentences.
Court Description: Gruender, Author, with Riley, Chief Judge, and Bright, Circuit Judge] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. The government showed that defendant Mary Ramos knew the specific features of the substance she was selling made it a controlled substance analogue; circumstantial evidence of knowledge is sufficient to satisfy the government's burden and the evidence the government produced showed that defendant: (1) knew she was in possession of an analogue; and(2) understood the pharmacological effects of the substance, i.e., that it produced a "high" similar to a controlled substance; the district court did not err in determining, for the purpose of calculating defendants' offense levels, that the synthetic cannabinoids defendants sold were more like pure THC than an equal quantity of marijuana. Judge Bright, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
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.