United States v. Ramos-Gonzalez
775 F.3d 483
1st Cir.2015Background
- In 2002 police pursued a red pickup; driver fled and abandoned the truck, which contained ~2 kg of cocaine, cash, bullets, phones, and IDs linking Cruz Ramos-González to the vehicle; an officer identified Ramos as the driver.
- Ramos was federally indicted in 2007; convicted in 2009, but the conviction was vacated on Confrontation Clause grounds (chemist testimony). He was retried in 2012 and reconvicted of possession with intent to distribute >500 g cocaine.
- At the 2012 sentencing the district court designated Ramos a career offender under U.S.S.G. §4B1.1 based on two prior Puerto Rico convictions, including a 1987 conviction under Article 256 (use of "violence or intimidation" against a public official); that designation raised his Guidelines range and produced a 327‑month sentence.
- Ramos raised multiple issues on appeal: pre-indictment delay, prosecutorial misconduct/Brady nondisclosure, exclusion of a late-noticed alibi witness, jury instructions (constructive/joint possession and missing-witness instruction), Rule 32 timing for the PSR, career-offender classification, Apprendi/Alleyne quantity issues, and substantive reasonableness of sentence.
- The First Circuit affirmed the conviction on all asserted trial-error and misconduct claims but held that the Article 256 conviction could not be shown from the permissible Shepard/Shepard‑style record to be a categorical "crime of violence," and thus the career-offender enhancement was improperly applied; the case was remanded for resentencing without the enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Ramos's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-indictment delay (Due Process) | Delay (indictment just before limitations) impaired defense by fading memories/lost witnesses/evidence | Delay was not tactical; attributable to transfer and prosecutorial assignment; statutes of limitation are primary protection | Denied — no abuse of discretion; no evidence of intentional tactical delay |
| Prosecutorial misconduct / Brady nondisclosure | Government withheld FBI 302s impeaching officer Vélez and engaged in a pattern of concealment warranting dismissal | Reports were impeachment (not exculpatory) and provided before retrial; prior court in conspiracy case found no bad faith | Denied — no prejudice at retrial, no extreme misconduct; urged office to improve disclosure procedures |
| Exclusion of late-disclosed alibi witness (Rule 12.1) | Exclusion violated right to compulsory process; corroborating witness was critical | Witness was undisclosed late in trial contrary to Rule 12.1; fairness/efficiency concerns justify exclusion | Affirmed — exclusion constitutional; defendant failed to comply with Rule 12.1 and gave no pressing justification |
| Jury instructions (constructive & joint possession) | Instruction suggested mere vehicle ownership could support conviction; joint-possession instruction unsupported by facts | Court repeatedly required finding of knowing, intentional possession and alibi instruction prohibited conviction absent proof of presence | Mixed: No legal error as to constructive possession (knowledge requirement emphasized); joint-possession boilerplate was improper but not plain error |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ramos-González, 664 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2011) (vacating prior conviction for Confrontation Clause violation)
- United States v. Bater, 594 F.3d 51 (1st Cir. 2010) (standard for reviewing pre‑indictment delay claims)
- United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (1971) (limitations on due process claims for pre‑indictment delay)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution's duty to disclose favorable evidence)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (Brady extends to impeachment evidence)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (prosecutor's duty to learn of favorable evidence known to others acting on government's behalf)
- Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (1988) (balancing defendant's right to present witnesses against orderly trial; sanctions for discovery violations)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (categorical vs. modified categorical approaches to prior‑conviction inquiry)