United States v. Hector Ramos
692 F. App'x 313
8th Cir.2017Background
- Hector Ruiz Ramos pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine (21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846) and conspiracy to commit money laundering (18 U.S.C. § 1956(h)).
- PSR described Ramos as the right-hand man to the organization’s leader, supplying bulk methamphetamine to multiple sub-distributors, assisting in wiring drug proceeds, and possessing firearms/ammunition.
- Parties entered an 11(c)(1)(C) plea/supplemental agreement that calculated an advisory Guidelines range of 210–262 months; the district court accepted the plea and agreement.
- The government moved under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 and the court granted a 20% reduction; the government recommended 168 months (210 months minus 20%).
- Defense sought a downward variance based on lack of criminal history, steady employment, and fleeing Guatemala to escape cartel threats; defense requested offense level 31 and a lower sentence.
- The district court sentenced Ramos to 168 months (concurrent counts), stating it considered the § 3553(a) factors, emphasizing offense seriousness while acknowledging lack of U.S. criminal history and the cooperation credit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ramos’s 168‑month sentence was unreasonable | Ramos argued he rebutted the Guidelines presumption by showing the court over-weighted offense seriousness and under-weighted his lack of criminal history and flight from cartel violence | Government argued the sentence—within the Guidelines after the § 5K1.1 reduction—was reasonable and the court properly balanced § 3553(a) factors | Affirmed: sentence was presumptively reasonable and Ramos failed to rebut that presumption; district court considered and weighed § 3553(a) factors properly |
| Whether court erred by not explicitly addressing Ramos’s flight from Guatemala | Ramos contended the court should have given greater weight to his fleeing cartel violence | Government: court heard the argument and was not required to address every point expressly | Held: court considered the argument; no obligation to mechanically recite or expressly reject every argument |
| Whether court insinuated Ramos had foreign criminal history | Ramos asserted the court’s phrase “at least in this country” implied foreign convictions | Government: phrasing properly acknowledged lack of U.S. criminal history | Held: no improper insinuation; court appropriately noted lack of criminal history in the U.S. |
| Whether district court abused discretion in weighing § 3553(a) factors | Ramos claimed the weighting amounted to an abuse of discretion | Government: discretionary sentencing within range is reviewed for abuse; record shows consideration of factors | Held: no clear error; sentence within permissible range and court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jones, 509 F.3d 911 (8th Cir.) (standard: review sentence for abuse of discretion)
- United States v. San–Miguel, 634 F.3d 471 (8th Cir.) (sentence within properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable)
- United States v. Cadenas, 445 F.3d 1091 (8th Cir.) (presumption may be rebutted by § 3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Vanhorn, 740 F.3d 1166 (8th Cir.) (district court need not expressly respond to every defendant argument)
- United States v. French, 719 F.3d 1002 (8th Cir.) (no mechanical recitation of every § 3553(a) factor required)
- United States v. Peck, 496 F.3d 885 (8th Cir.) (appellate review: court considered § 3553(a) factors and did not commit clear error)