United States v. Ramos
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 8509
2d Cir.2012Background
- Ramos pled guilty in the Second Circuit to three U.S.C. offenses: aiding illegal entry, aiding inadmissible entry, and illegal reentry after removal.
- District court sentenced Ramos to 51 months on Counts 1 and 2, and 24 months on Count 3, to run concurrently.
- Ramos previously was sentenced in 2001 for using another's passport to enter the U.S., with three years of supervised release.
- While under supervision, Ramos was deported and reentered approximately nine months later without reporting as required.
- A probation warrant for supervised-release violation issued; an arrest warrant remained outstanding when Ramos aided illegal entry in 2009.
- The district court added two criminal-history points under § 4A1.1(d), calculating a 51–63 month Guidelines range.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 4A1.1(d) requires knowledge of a criminal sentence | Ramos argues knowledge is required | Ramos asserts lack of knowledge negates the increase | Knowledge not required; two-point increase affirmed |
| Procedural/substantive consideration of 3553(a) factors | Court ignored Ramos's hardships and failed to consider §3553(a) | Court reviewed information and considered 3553(a) | No reversible procedural or substantive error; sentence reasonable |
| Ineffective assistance claim on sentencing | Counsel allegedly ineffective at sentencing | No handling of the claim on direct appeal | Claim dismissed without prejudice to post-conviction relief |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Phillips, 413 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2005) (supports non-necessity of knowledge for 4A1.1(d))
- United States v. McCann, 366 F.3d 46 (1st Cir. 2004) (knowledge of sentence not required for 4A1.1(d))
- United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) (procedural vs. substantive error framework (en banc))
- United States v. Hasan, 586 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2009) (sentence reasonableness standard; abuse-of-discretion review)
- United States v. Bonilla, 618 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2010) (sentencing arguments need not be separately addressed)
- United States v. Fernandez, 443 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 2006) (Guidelines sentence within reasonable range)
- United States v. McCann, 366 F.3d 46 (1st Cir. 2004) (discusses knowledge regarding criminal history not required)