United States v. Rigoberto Ramirez-Gonzalez
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 19321
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Ramirez-Gonzalez, a Mexican citizen, pled guilty in 2011 to felony wire fraud (small stipulated loss of $105; court ordered $67,375 restitution) and was deported.
- In 2014 he was convicted of illegal reentry; the PSR recommended an 8-level U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) enhancement as the prior offense was an "aggravated felony" (loss > $10,000).
- At sentencing the district court sustained Ramirez-Gonzalez’s objection, declined the 8-level enhancement, imposed a 4-level "any other felony" enhancement (§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(D)), and sentenced him to 10 months.
- Ramirez-Gonzalez asked the court to order substantive corrections to the PSR to reflect that his prior crime was not an aggravated felony; the court refused but noted the change in its Statement of Reasons attached to the judgment.
- Ramirez-Gonzalez completed his sentence and was deported, then appealed solely to obtain substantive corrections to the PSR (not resentencing).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness: whether deportation after sentence moots the appeal for PSR correction | Appeal remains live because an erroneous PSR causes continuing collateral consequences (e.g., immigration effects, future reentry) | Deportation and completion of sentence render appeal moot | Not moot: PSR errors can have continuing collateral consequences and can be corrected while appellant abroad |
| Rule 32(i)(3)(B): whether district court failed to rule on disputed PSR portions | Court failed to make specific findings and therefore must correct PSR | Court made explicit and implicit rulings at sentencing and in Statement of Reasons satisfying Rule 32 | No reversible error; bench rulings plus Statement of Reasons suffice to resolve disputes |
| Rule 36: whether PSR contained a clerical error subject to correction | PSR language was incorrect and should be corrected under Rule 36 | PSR wording was deliberate, not a clerical "mindless" mistake; Rule 36 inapplicable | Rule 36 does not apply; disagreement between judge and drafter is not a clerical error |
| Rule 32(i)(3)(C): whether court failed to append its determinations to PSR | Court needed to append explicit findings to every PSR copy sent to Bureau of Prisons | Court appended a Statement of Reasons reflecting its determinations, which suffices | No error; Statement of Reasons appended to the PSR satisfied Rule 32(i)(3)(C) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Heredia-Holguin, 823 F.3d 337 (5th Cir. 2016) (Article III mootness and collateral-consequences principles for deported defendants)
- United States v. Lares-Meraz, 452 F.3d 352 (5th Cir. 2006) (de novo review of mootness)
- Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United States, 506 U.S. 9 (1992) (event during appeal that prevents effectual relief requires dismissal)
- Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (1998) (expired sentence requires collateral consequence to maintain Article III jurisdiction)
- United States v. Mackay, 757 F.3d 195 (5th Cir. 2014) (PSR is part of the record; true clerical PSR errors correctable)
- United States v. Villanueva-Diaz, 634 F.3d 844 (5th Cir. 2011) (judgment errors have continuing collateral consequences after deportation)
- Alwan v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 507 (5th Cir. 2004) (aggravated-felony determinations can create collateral consequences preserving appeals)
- United States v. Rosenbaum-Alanis, 483 F.3d 381 (5th Cir. 2007) (abrogated in part by Heredia-Holguin; discussed deportation and resentencing practicability)
- United States v. Carreon, 11 F.3d 1225 (5th Cir. 1994) (adoption of PSR can permit implicit findings satisfying Rule 32)