USA v. Juan Deniz-Ramirez, No. 15-50295 (5th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-50295 Document: 00513325051 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/30/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15-50295 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED December 30, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JUAN MANUAL DENIZ-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:14-CR-669 Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Juan Manual Deniz-Ramirez appeals the 42-month above-guidelines sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry. Deniz-Ramirez challenges the substantive reasonableness of his sentence, arguing that it is greater than necessary to accomplish the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). In support of this challenge, DenizRamirez contends that the district court improperly used his prior 32-month 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * Case: 15-50295 Document: 00513325051 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/30/2015 No. 15-50295 sentence for illegal reentry as “the benchmark and starting point” for its sentencing decision rather than the guidelines range. He further asserts that his sentence does not adequately reflect his history and characteristics, overstates the seriousness of his offense, fails to provide just punishment, and undermines respect for the law. Deniz-Ramirez also contends that the district court’s sentencing decision is greater than necessary to provide adequate deterrence, protect the public, and provide educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment. We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). A non-guidelines sentence will be found substantively unreasonable when it “(1) does not account for a factor that should have received significant weight, (2) gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or (3) represents a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors.” United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 708 (5th Cir. 2006). Contrary to Deniz-Ramirez’s assertion, the district court did not improperly use his prior 32-month sentence for illegal reentry as “the benchmark and starting point” for its sentencing decision. Rather, the record establishes that the district court’s sentencing decision was based on the factual information in the presentence report, the guidelines range, the relevant policy statements, the arguments made by the parties during sentencing, and the § 3553(a) sentencing factors. Relying on this information, the district court concluded that an above-guidelines sentence was necessary to reflect Deniz-Ramirez’s history and characteristics, the need to deter future criminal conduct, to impose a just sentence, and promote respect for the law. In support, the district court cited Deniz-Ramirez’s “large number of uncounted criminal convictions” and stated that his prior 32-month sentence 2 Case: 15-50295 Document: 00513325051 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/30/2015 No. 15-50295 for illegal reentry “did not get his attention,” emphasizing the short period between when Deniz-Ramirez was removed from the United States and when he returned. Nothing suggests that the district court did not account for a factor that should have received significant weight, gave significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or made a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors. See Smith, 440 F.3d at 708. In essence, Deniz-Ramirez is requesting that this court reweigh the § 3553(a) factors, which is not within the scope of this court’s review. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 3
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.
