United States v. Geoffrey Ramer
677 F. App'x 853
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Geoffrey Ramer pled guilty for his role in an international telemarketing fraud: conspiracy to commit wire fraud, multiple wire-fraud counts, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and international money laundering charges.
- The district court sentenced Ramer to 108 months’ imprisonment.
- At sentencing Ramer lodged objections to the presentence report on leadership role, victim vulnerability/number, and loss amount, but later agreed to a sentencing stipulation resolving those objections.
- Defense counsel explicitly told the district court the stipulation resolved all PSC objections and relied on it when arguing for a lower sentence.
- On appeal Ramer argued (1) the Government failed to present sentencing evidence on the stipulated issues and (2) the sentence was procedurally unreasonable for allegedly failing to consider § 3553(a) factors and for not addressing his downward-variance arguments.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed, finding Ramer waived his Guidelines challenges by agreeing to the stipulation and that the sentence was procedurally reasonable (any omission harmless).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ramer) | Defendant's Argument (Gov't) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gov't had to present evidence at sentencing on leadership, victim vulnerability, and loss | Gov't failed to present evidence on those factors; Guidelines enhancements unsupported | Ramer waived these challenges by agreeing to the sentencing stipulation resolving PSC objections | Waived — appellate review barred; stipulation is an intentional relinquishment |
| Effect of Molina-Martinez on waived Guidelines issues | Molina-Martinez requires appellate discretion to correct forfeited errors | Molina-Martinez applies only to forfeited, not intentionally relinquished, issues; stipulation shows intentional relinquishment | Molina-Martinez not applicable; waiver stands |
| Whether district court procedurally erred by considering only deterrence under § 3553(a) | Court focused solely on deterrence, ignoring other § 3553(a) factors | District court addressed personal characteristics, offense seriousness, and protection of public; not required to recite each subsection | No procedural error; court considered § 3553(a) factors and individualized assessment |
| Whether district court failed to address arguments for downward variance | Court did not address each mitigation argument (education, family tragedy, limited profit, intermittent absence, not targeting elderly) | Court considered personal characteristics and offense conduct; rejection of variance explained; any omission harmless | No reversible error; court sufficiently addressed arguments and any error was harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Robinson, 744 F.3d 293 (4th Cir. 2014) (waiver by explicit withdrawal of an issue bars appellate review)
- United States v. Williams, 29 F.3d 172 (4th Cir. 1994) (sentencing stipulation waives right to appeal that issue)
- Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (courts may, in discretion, remedy forfeited sentencing errors when not intentionally relinquished)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (procedural-reasonableness standard for sentencing requires Guidelines calculation, opportunity to argue, consideration of § 3553(a), and sufficient explanation)
- United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325 (4th Cir. 2009) (district court must place individualized assessment on the record and address nonfrivolous mitigation arguments)
- United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468 (4th Cir. 2007) (district court may reasonably accord significant weight to a single sentencing factor)
- United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339 (4th Cir. 2006) (no requirement to "robotically tick through" each subsection of § 3553(a))
- United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832 (4th Cir. 2010) (harmless-error standard for sentencing procedural errors)