United States v. Daniel Ramirez, No. 05-1803 (8th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - criminal law. Evidence was sufficient to support drug conspiracy conviction; district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for new trial based on a claim a juror failed to disclose pertinent information during voir dire.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 05-1803 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Daniel F. Ramirez, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: August 29, 2007 Filed: September 6, 2007 ___________ Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. A jury found Daniel F. Ramirez (Ramirez) guilty of conspiring to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; possessing marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); and possessing a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). The district court1 imposed a sentence of 120 months imprisonment and 5 years supervised release. On appeal, his counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and has moved to withdraw. We affirm. 1 The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. We conclude the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, was sufficient to support Ramirez s convictions, and the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying his motion for a new trial based on a juror s failure to disclose pertinent information during voir dire. See United States v. Ruiz, 446 F.3d 762, 768-70 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 537 (2006) and 127 S. Ct. 1027 (2007). After reviewing the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we conclude there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ -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.
