United States v. Ramos
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 15537
| 1st Cir. | 2014Background
- Ramos and three co-defendants were recorded engaging in sex acts with KMV, a 14-year-old, in videos introduced at trial.
- Ramos argued he did not know he was being recorded; jury rejected this defense and found him guilty of aiding and abetting production of child pornography.
- Sentencing imposed 188 months in prison and ten years of supervised release with broad computer, internet, and pornography restrictions.
- Ramos challenged the broad internet/computer/pornography conditions as not reasonably related to his characteristics or offense.
- Court vacated the internet/computer restrictions (9, 17, 18) and the pornography ban, remanding for modification consistent with Perazza-Mercado; conviction and term of imprisonment affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there sufficient evidence Ramos knew recording was taking place? | United States | Ramos | Conviction affirmed; sufficient evidence supported knowledge of recording. |
| Did the district court abuse Ramos’s Sixth Amendment rights by allowing Vilanova to invoke the Fifth Amendment? | United States | Ramos | No abuse; district court properly balanced Fifth Amendment privilege and defense rights. |
| Was the sentence properly explained and reasonably related to §3553(a) factors? | Ramos | United States | No plain error; explanation sufficient and sentence affirmed. |
| Are the internet/computer and pornography restrictions within supervised release valid? | Ramos | United States | Vacate restrictions 9, 17, 18 and the porn ban; remand to reconsider restrictions with record-based justification. |
| Should the district court revisit the pornography ban due to record bases? | Ramos | United States | Pornography ban vacated; may be reconsidered on remand with appropriate justification. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jones, 674 F.3d 88 (1st Cir. 2012) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence in light favorable to government)
- United States v. Cortés–Cabán, 691 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2012) (sufficiency and standard of review for evidence)
- United States v. Gary, 74 F.3d 304 (1st Cir. 1996) (Sixth Amendment vs. privilege/invocation balance; defense rights)
- United States v. De La Cruz, 996 F.2d 1307 (1st Cir. 1993) (Fifth Amendment invocation and defense rights)
- United States v. Zapata, 589 F.3d 475 (1st Cir. 2009) (reasonableness of sentencing emphasis and factors)
- United States v. Perazza-Mercado, 553 F.3d 65 (1st Cir. 2009) (vacating broad internet/computer restrictions; tailoring methods)
- United States v. Burroughs, 613 F.3d 233 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (limits of blanket internet ban; tailoring conditions)
- United States v. Rivas-Macias, 537 F.3d 1271 (10th Cir. 2008) (continuing trial impact of witness sentencing schedules)