United States v. Jesus Ramirez-Hidalgo
707 F. App'x 850
| 5th Cir. | 2018Background
- Defendant Jesus Ramirez-Hidalgo pleaded guilty to illegal reentry (8 U.S.C. § 1326) and was sentenced to 21 months' imprisonment, below the Guidelines range of 24–30 months.
- The district court's oral pronouncement imposed a 21-month term but said nothing about credit for prior ICE custody.
- The subsequently entered written judgment also imposed a 21-month term and stated that the sentence "provides credit for" one month spent in ICE custody.
- Ramirez argued the discrepancy between the oral pronouncement and the written judgment created an ambiguity requiring vacatur and resentencing.
- He separately argued, relying on Johnson, that 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) is unconstitutionally vague; he acknowledged Fifth Circuit precedent rejecting that challenge but noted Supreme Court certiorari in Dimaya.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a conflict or ambiguity exists between the oral sentence and the written judgment | The written judgment's reference to one month of ICE credit conflicts with the oral pronouncement’s silence and creates ambiguity | The oral pronouncement controls when conflict exists; both documents impose a 21-month term, so no conflict or ambiguity exists | No conflict or ambiguity; both reflect a clear 21-month sentence, so no remand for resentencing |
| Whether the sentencing court’s intent can be discerned from the record if ambiguity exists | If ambiguity exists, ask district court intent from the record; otherwise remand | Same; but here court intent is clear without remand | Court found intent clear from record; no resentencing required |
| Whether Johnson v. United States renders 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) void for vagueness | § 16(b) is unconstitutionally vague under Johnson | Fifth Circuit precedent controls; Gonzalez-Longoria rejects a Johnson-based challenge | Held that Fifth Circuit precedent stands; Gonzalez-Longoria governs, so challenge fails |
| Whether the Supreme Court’s grant in Dimaya alters Fifth Circuit precedent | Grant of certiorari in Dimaya might change Fifth Circuit law | A cert grant elsewhere does not alter binding Fifth Circuit precedent | Certiorari in Dimaya does not change Fifth Circuit holdings; Gonzalez-Longoria remains controlling |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Torres-Aguilar, 352 F.3d 934 (5th Cir. 2003) (standard for resolving written/oral judgment differences)
- United States v. Martinez, 250 F.3d 941 (5th Cir. 2001) (oral pronouncement controls when conflict exists)
- United States v. Garcia, 604 F.3d 186 (5th Cir. 2010) (vacatur and remand required when court intent is unclear)
- United States v. Gonzalez-Longoria, 831 F.3d 670 (5th Cir. 2016) (rejection of Johnson-based challenge to § 16(b))
- Wicker v. McCotter, 798 F.2d 155 (5th Cir. 1986) (grant of certiorari elsewhere does not alter panel precedent)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (constitutional vagueness decision relied upon by the defendant)
- Lynch v. Dimaya, 137 S. Ct. 31 (2016) (Supreme Court grant of certiorari noted but does not change Fifth Circuit precedent)