USA v. Abisai Ramirez-Anguiano, No. 18-10679 (5th Cir. 2019)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 18-10679 Document: 00514883091 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/21/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 18-10679 Summary Calendar FILED March 21, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ABISAI RAMIREZ-ANGUIANO, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:18-CR-21-1 Before DAVIS, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Abisai Ramirez-Anguiano was convicted of one count of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute and sentenced to serve 240 months in prison and a three-year term of supervised release. On appeal, he challenges only the district court’s application of the two-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(5) for importation of methamphetamine, arguing that the district court erred by applying this enhancement because 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 18-10679 Document: 00514883091 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/21/2019 No. 18-10679 there was no evidence to show that he knew the methamphetamine was imported. The Government has moved for summary affirmance or, alternatively, an extension of time to file a brief. As Ramirez-Anguiano acknowledges, his argument is foreclosed by United States v. Serfass, 684 F.3d 548, 552 (5th Cir. 2012), which held that the § 2D1.1(b)(5) enhancement applies “regardless of whether the defendant had knowledge of that importation.” Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and 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.