US v. Jesse Ramos-Chavez, No. 12-4850 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4850 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JESSE RAMOS-CHAVEZ, a/k/a Jesse Chavez-Ramos, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:12-cr-00150-FL-1) Submitted: June 28, 2013 Decided: July 18, 2013 Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Yvonne V. Watford-McKinney, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jesse sentence Ramos-Chavez imposed after he appeals the guilty pleaded from to fourteen-month reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(1) (2006). On appeal, Ramos-Chavez argues that the district court imposed a procedurally unreasonable sentence because it did not adequately address defense counsel s arguments at sentencing that Ramos-Chavez was not a danger to the general public because his prior convictions of violence involved an abusive girlfriend and that he has a child with special needs that he was attempting to support. Finding no error, we affirm. We review Ramos-Chavez s sentence for reasonableness under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 51 (2007). Gall v. In sentencing, the district court should first calculate the Sentencing Guidelines range and give the parties an opportunity to argue for whatever sentence they deem Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 appropriate. F.3d 212, 216 United (4th Cir. States 2010). v. The district court should then consider the 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 support the & Supp. 2013) sentence factors requested by to determine either party. whether they Id. When rendering a sentence, the district court must make and place on the record an individualized assessment based on the particular facts of the case. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328, 2 330 (4th Cir. 2009). sentencing judge In explaining the chosen sentence, the should set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the parties arguments and has a reasoned basis decisionmaking authority. for exercising his own legal Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). While a district court must consider the statutory factors explain and its factor on the record. sentence, it need not discuss every United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006). In this case, the record reflects that the district court did consider the arguments advanced by Ramos-Chavez for a lower-end sentence and that there was sufficient explanation for their rejection. Ramos-Chavez had The substance court abuse specifically issues stated himself, that enabled the abusive conduct that contributed to his assault convictions, and needed to distance himself source of many his of from his troubles. girlfriend The court who was the recounted the multiple times that Ramos-Chavez had been deported and noted that the sentence needed to be sufficient to deter him from illegally reentering the United States again. The court recognized its obligation to specifically consider the § 3553(a) factors. We conclude that the record demonstrates sufficient reasoning for district court s us to review the consideration 3 sentence of and reflects Ramos-Chavez s the specific arguments for a lower-end sentence. There was no abuse of discretion. We therefore affirm the sentence. oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials We dispense with legal contentions are before this and court argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 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.
