US v. Melvin Ramirez, No. 12-4429 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4429 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MELVIN ERALDO RAMIREZ, a/k/a Benigno A. Medrano Centano, a/k/a Benigo Medrano-Centeno, a/k/a Benigo Amilcar CentenoMeddrano, a/k/a Benigno Medrano, a/k/a Carlos Alberto Samayoa, a/k/a Melvin Ramirez, a/k/a Melvin E. Ramirez, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:11-cr-00584-JCC-1) Submitted: December 21, 2012 Decided: January 7, 2013 Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, W. Todd Watson, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Caroline S. Platt, Appellate Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Stacy M. Chaffin, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Melvin Eraldo Ramirez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after removal following his conviction of an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) (2006). The district court sentenced him to eighty-four months imprisonment and a term Ramirez of three challenges years the sentence, contending adequately explain supervised procedural that the the release. On reasonableness district imposition of a court appeal, of the failed three-year to term of supervised release when he was to be deported after serving his term of imprisonment. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ( USSG ) § 5D1.1(c) & cmt. n.5 (2011); see USSG app. C., amend. 756 (effective Nov. 1, 2011). We affirm. When rendering a sentence, the district court must adequately explain the chosen sentence to allow for meaningful appellate review and to promote the perception of fair Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50 (2007). sentencing. However, a district court is not required to discuss the 18 U.S.C. § fashion. 2006). 3553(a) (2006) sentencing factors in a checklist United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. Furthermore, Guidelines, lengthy. . . . [w]hen the imposing explanation a need sentence not be within the elaborate or United States v. Hernandez, 603 F.3d 267, 271 (4th Cir. 2010). 2 On appeal, we review a sentence, whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range[,] under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. 41. Gall, 552 U.S. at Because Ramirez did not object below to the adequacy of the district court s explanation for the sentence it imposed, our review is for plain error. United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 577 78 (4th Cir. 2010); see United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731 32 (1993) (detailing plain error standard). After review of the sentencing transcript and the parties briefs, we conclude that the district court adequately explained its imposition of a three-year term of supervised release. The court considered Ramirez s significant criminal history and multiple prior unauthorized entries into the United States as well as the § 3553(a) factors. Taking the facts and circumstances of Ramirez s case into consideration, the court created a special condition of release, a prohibition against unauthorized reentry. Although the court did not specifically tie the § 3553(a) factors to the term of supervised release in a checklist manner, it is apparent that the court considered the specific facts and circumstances of Ramirez s case and found that an added measure of deterrence was needed. district imposition court of thoroughly a three-year explained term 3 of its Because the reasons supervised for release, the we conclude that the district court committed no procedural error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED Ramirez also asserts that the district court should have explained why it imposed the maximum term of supervised release, as opposed to a lesser amount of time. We conclude that the same explanation that supported imposing a term of supervised release in the first instance is similarly adequate to explain the length of the term of supervised release deemed appropriate by the district court. 4

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.