United States v. Christian Ramirez, 662 F. App'x 697

Ramirez pleaded guilty without a written plea agreement to a superseding information charging conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 28 grams or more of crack and detectable amounts of marijuana and MDMC; he signed a factual proffer admitting distribution of “over 28 grams” and responsibility “up to 840 grams” based on co‑conspirators’ conduct.
A prior second superseding indictment had charged him with conspiracy involving 280 grams or more of crack and an 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) firearm count; the government dismissed that indictment as part of the plea, reducing the statutory mandatory minimum exposure.
The PSR attributed 280 grams of crack to Ramirez for sentencing, producing a guidelines range of 121–151 months; Ramirez objected, arguing he should be held accountable for only 28–112 grams (a four‑level reduction).
The district court overruled the objection, adopted the PSR’s higher drug‑quantity finding, and sentenced Ramirez to 121 months (the bottom of the guidelines range).
On appeal Ramirez argued: (1) his plea was not knowing and voluntary because he did not understand co‑conspirator attribution; (2) the government breached the plea by opposing the PSR; and (3) the sentence was substantively unreasonable. He also later sought to raise a mitigating‑role claim under Amendment 794.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plea was knowing and voluntary	Ramirez: court failed to explain he could be held accountable for co‑conspirators’ conduct, so plea was uninformed	Government: plea colloquy and factual proffer explained co‑conspirator attribution; plea informed	Court: No plain error; plea was knowing and voluntary
Whether government breached plea agreement by opposing PSR	Ramirez: factual proffer limited him to 28 grams; government should not oppose his objection	Government: proffer admitted “over 28 grams” and responsibility up to 840 grams; government fulfilled plea (dropped higher charge and §924(c))	Court: No plain error; no breach; Ramirez received benefits
Whether 121‑month sentence was substantively unreasonable	Ramirez: sentence improper because court relied on co‑conspirators’ conduct and guidelines range based on 280g	Government: Ramirez stipulated to co‑conspirator attribution; court considered §3553(a) factors including violent history	Court: No abuse of discretion; sentence reasonable (within guidelines)
Whether Ramirez may raise Amendment 794 mitigating‑role claim on appeal	Ramirez: amendment supports downward adjustment	Government: Ramirez failed to raise claim in briefs	Court: Claim abandoned for failure to raise timely; motion to file supplemental brief denied

United States v. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2005) (plain‑error standard for forfeited issues)
Cotton v. United States, 535 U.S. 625 (2002) (plain‑error framework articulated)
United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2010) (abuse‑of‑discretion review for substantive reasonableness)
United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179 (11th Cir. 2008) (standard for vacating substantively unreasonable sentences)
Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678 (11th Cir. 2014) (abandonment rule for issues not plainly and prominently raised)
Cole v. United States Attorney General, 712 F.3d 517 (11th Cir. 2013) (issue abandonment principle reiterated)