USA V. ULYSSES RAMOS, No. 19-50348 (9th Cir. 2020)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 9 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 19-50348 D.C. No. 3:13-cr-01240-L-2 MEMORANDUM* ULYSSES RAMOS, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California M. James Lorenz, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 2, 2020** Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Ulysses Ramos appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 24-month sentence imposed upon his fourth revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Ramos contends that the district court impermissibly considered * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). rehabilitative purposes in determining the length of his sentence. See Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319, 335 (2011) (district courts are precluded from imposing or lengthening a sentence to promote rehabilitation); United States v. Grant, 664 F.3d 276, 280 (9th Cir. 2011) (applying Tapia to sentences imposed on revocation of supervised release). We review for plain error, see Grant, 664 F.3d at 279, and conclude there is none. Although the district court expressed concern about the danger Ramos poses to himself and discussed the availability of rehabilitation programs in prison, the record does not suggest that the court imposed or lengthened the sentence to promote rehabilitation. See Tapia, 564 U.S. at 334 (a district court does not run afoul of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(a) by “discussing the opportunities for rehabilitation within prison”). AFFIRMED. 2 19-50348

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.