USA v. Jose Ramirez, No. 17-10960 (5th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 17-10960 Document: 00514475714 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/16/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 17-10960 Summary Calendar FILED May 16, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JOSE RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:17-CR-53-1 Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jose Ramirez pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance and was sentenced within the Guidelines to 180 months of imprisonment, to be followed by 3 years of supervised release. On appeal, he contends that the district court violated his constitutional rights under the Confrontation Clause and Due Process Clause when, in imposing his sentence, 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 17-10960 Document: 00514475714 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/16/2018 No. 17-10960 the court relied on information from the presentence report about his other criminal activity. Even so, Ramirez moves for summary disposition of his appeal because he concedes that the issue is foreclosed by this court’s decisions in United States v. Beydoun, 469 F.3d 102, 108 (5th Cir. 2006), and United States v. Navarro, 169 F.3d 228, 236 (5th Cir. 1999). He states that he seeks to preserve the issue for further review. As Ramirez observes, his rights under the Confrontation Clause do not extend to sentencing proceedings. See Beydoun, 469 F.3d at 108. Moreover, we have previously rejected that the denial of the right to confront witnesses at a sentencing hearing was a due process violation. See United States v. Salas, 182 F. App’x 282, 284 & n.7 (5th Cir. 2006). Because Ramirez’s arguments are indeed foreclosed, his motion for summary disposition is GRANTED. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 2
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.
