United States v. Raymundo Ramirez-Castro
687 F. App'x 400
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Raymundo Ramirez-Castro pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation.
- The Sentencing Guidelines produced an advisory range of 24–30 months.
- District court imposed an above-guidelines sentence of 40 months based on public-protection concerns and Ramirez-Castro’s criminal history.
- Court emphasized Ramirez-Castro’s extensive prior DWI convictions and prior immigration-related convictions, including a recent 30-month sentence for illegal reentry that failed to deter him.
- Ramirez-Castro argued on appeal the district court procedurally erred by relying on DWI history to find he was a danger to the public and that the sentence was substantively unreasonable given his five years of sobriety.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed procedural error for plain error and substantive reasonableness for abuse of discretion and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural error for relying on DWI history to find danger to public | Ramirez-Castro: court erred because last DWI was in 2005 and he’d been sober five years | Government: court permissibly considered DWI history along with immigration offenses | No plain error; district court’s factual finding not clearly erroneous |
| Whether error affected substantial rights | Ramirez-Castro: reliance on DWI was decisive | Government: sentence also rested on immigration offenses and failure of prior 30-month sentence to deter | No effect on substantial rights; affirmation |
| Substantive reasonableness of upward variance | Ramirez-Castro: variance gave undue weight to protection-of-public given sobriety | Government: sentencing justified by continued danger, need for deterrence and respect for law | No abuse of discretion; sentence reasonable |
| Standard of review for procedural and substantive claims | Ramirez-Castro: (implicit) challenges require de novo or deferential review | Government: procedural review is plain error; substantive is abuse of discretion | Court applied plain error to procedural claim and abuse of discretion to substantive claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (plain-error review of unpreserved sentencing objections)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (standards for review of sentence reasonableness)
- United States v. Lopez, 923 F.2d 47 (issues of fact resolvable by district court cannot be plain error)
- United States v. Escalante-Reyes, 689 F.3d 415 (requiring showing that error affected substantial rights)
- United States v. Key, 599 F.3d 469 (abuse-of-discretion review for substantive reasonableness)
- United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704 (context for reasonableness review)