USA v. Ramos, No. 06-30652 (5th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 12, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-30652 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus LUCIANO MENDEZ RAMOS, also known as Chinning, Defendant-Appellant. -------------------Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:05-CR-20084-2 -------------------Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Luciano Mendez Ramos appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine and marijuana and money laundering conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1965(h) and 21 U.S.C. § 846. Without providing a clear explanation of the guidelines application that purportedly supports his position, Ramos argues that the district court erred when it calculated his sentence because the counts should have been grouped for sentencing purposes and the money * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 06-30652 -2laundering count should not have been used to increase his offense level. Ramos s argument is premised upon his repeated assertion that the district court erred by failing to group his counts of conviction. However, Ramos s sentence is based upon the district court s correct application of the grouping rules set forth in the Guidelines. As his counts were in fact correctly grouped by the district court, Ramos s argument is without merit. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 (governing drug trafficking offenses); U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1 (governing money laundering offenses); U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2(d) (offenses covered by § 2D1.1 and § 2S1.1 are to be grouped pursuant to subsection (d)); U.S.S.G. § 3D1.3(b) (when counts involve offenses of the same general type to which different guidelines apply, the district court is to apply the offense guideline that produces the highest offense level). Furthermore, Ramos s reliance upon United States v. Rice, 185 F.3d 326 (5th Cir. 2005), and United States v. Haltom, 113 F.3d 43 (5th Cir. 1997), is misplaced. In both Rice and Haltom this court determined that the district court erred by failing to group the counts of conviction. Haltom, 113 F.3d at 45-46. See Rice, 185 F.3d 326-29; As discussed above, in Ramos s case, the district court correctly grouped Ramos s conviction counts in accordance with the grouping rules set forth in the Guidelines. Rice and Haltom are therefore inapposite. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
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.
