United States v. Ramirez-Perez
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 12695
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- Ramirez-Perez pleaded guilty to being present in the United States after prior deportation following an aggravated felony conviction.
- In 1994, he pled guilty in California to unlawfully furnishing or selling a controlled substance, receiving 220 days’ jail and 3 years’ probation.
- In 1998, he violated probation, receiving 365 days in jail with 234 days credit for time served.
- From 1993 to 1998, he was deported/removed from the U.S. four times.
- In 2009, he pleaded guilty to assault with a dangerous weapon, and investigators linked this to his deportation/ aggravated felony history.
- The district court enhanced his offense level and criminal history based on the finding that the 1994 sentence exceeded 13 months, calculating 220 days plus 365 days as the prior sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the 1994 sentence exceed 13 months for §2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i)? | Ramirez-Perez argued time served should reduce the prior sentence length. | Ramirez-Perez contends credit should be deducted, lowering the prior sentence impact. | No; sentence pronounced exceeded 13 months. |
| Should time served credit be subtracted under §4A1.2(k)(1) for criminal history calculations? | N/A (Government’s position based on the Galvan framework). | Credit should reduce the length used for history points. | Credit for time served is not subtracted; sentence pronounced governs. |
| Is Galvan the controlling framework over Glover and lenity regarding time served credits? | Galvan supports not deducting time served; not double-counting credit. | Glover suggests potential double counting; lenity arguments exist. | Galvan governs; rule of lenity inapplicable; Glover not persuasive here. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Galvan, 453 F.3d 738 (6th Cir. 2006) (credit for time served does not reduce the sentence pronounced for §4A1.2(k))
- United States v. Glover, 154 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 1998) (considered time served credit; not controlling here)
- United States v. Johnson, 529 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2000) (rule-of-lenity analysis; interpretive guidance on ambiguous terms)