Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50457/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50457-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Santos Graciano Ramirez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50457

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE SANTOS GRACIANO RAMIREZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:14-CR-310-1

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Santos Graciano Ramirez appeals the 15-month sentence imposed 

for his conviction of being found in the United States without permission, 

following removal. He contends that his sentence is greater than necessary to 

achieve the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) because U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, 

the Guideline applicable in his case, overstates the seriousness of what 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 17, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50457 Document: 00513641312 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/17/2016
No.15-50457

2

essentially is a non-violent international trespass and double counts prior 

convictions in the offense level and criminal history calculation.1

Ramirez did not object to the reasonableness of his sentence in the 

district court. He contends that an objection was not required to preserve his 

arguments for appeal. However, his argument is foreclosed. See United States 

v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007). We will review the sentence 

for plain error only. Id. To show plain error, Ramirez must show a forfeited 

error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. Puckett v. 

United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes such a showing, we have 

the discretion to correct the error but only if it seriously affects the fairness, 

integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. 

Ramirez’s sentence fell within his advisory sentencing guidelines range

and is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. 

Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008). Ramirez argues that 

his sentence should not be accorded a presumption of reasonableness because 

§ 2L1.2, is not derived from empirical data. However, his argument is 

foreclosed. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009); 

United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th Cir. 2009). 

This court has rejected Ramirez’s arguments that § 2L1.2 renders a 

sentence unreasonable due to double counting or overstating the seriousness 

of the illegal reentry offense. See Duarte, 569 F.3d at 529-31; United States v. 

 

1 At the time Ramirez was sentenced for the instant offense, the district court revoked 

a term of supervised release Ramirez was serving for a prior offense. It sentenced Ramirez 

to a six-month term of imprisonment, which it ordered to run consecutively to the sentence 

for the instant offense. In his brief, Ramirez argues that the district court failed to state 

adequately its reasons for imposing a consecutive revocation sentence. He also contends that

the concurrent revocation sentence, when combined with the sentence for the illegal reentry 

offense, was greater than necessary to achieve the sentencing goals of § 3553(a). Those 

arguments are not properly before this court because Ramirez’s appeal from his revocation 

sentence was dismissed for want of prosecution. United States v. Ramirez, No. 15-50495 (5th 

Cir. June 8, 2015). 

 Case: 15-50457 Document: 00513641312 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/17/2016
No.15-50457

3

Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 212 (5th Cir. 2008). At sentencing, the district 

court considered the relevant § 3553(a) factors, the advisory sentencing 

guidelines, the facts of Ramirez’s case, and Ramirez’s mitigating arguments. 

It determined that a sentence within the advisory guidelines range was 

sufficient to achieve the sentencing goals of § 3553(a). Ramirez’s disagreement 

with the propriety of his sentence and the court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) 

factors is insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that attaches 

to his sentence. See United States v. Koss, 812 F.3d 460, 472 (5th Cir. 2016); 

United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, Ramirez 

has not established plain error. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-50457 Document: 00513641312 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/17/2016