Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-20672/USCOURTS-ca5-14-20672-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Diego Ramirez-Torres
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-20672

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DIEGO RAMIREZ-TORRES, also known as Diego Ramirez, also known as 

Diego Ramirez Torres,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:13-CR-700-1

Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Diego Ramirez-Torres appeals his conviction and sentence under 8 

U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) for illegal reentry following an aggravated felony 

conviction; the district court sentenced him at the bottom of the guidelines 

range to 70 months of imprisonment and then reduced the sentence to 69 

months in light of the month that Ramirez-Torres had already spent in

custody. Ramirez-Torres’s challenge to the constitutionality of § 1326(b)(2) 

 

* 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

September 2, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-20672 Document: 00513178659 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/02/2015
No. 14-20672

2

pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), is “fully foreclosed 

from further debate.” United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 

(5th Cir. 2007).

Because Ramirez-Torres did not raise in the district court his current 

challenges to his U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) enhancement, we review for plain 

error. See United States v. Chavez-Hernandez, 671 F.3d 494, 497 (5th Cir. 

2012). The record contains both the indictment and the judgment pertaining 

to Ramirez-Torres’s Texas conviction for burglary of a dwelling with intent to 

commit assault, and we therefore reject as factually incorrect his argument 

that the district court based the enhancement entirely upon information 

contained in his presentence report. See United States v. Conde-Castaneda, 

753 F.3d 172, 177 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 311 (2014). The indictment 

and judgment establish that Ramirez-Torres was convicted under Texas Penal 

Code § 30.02(a)(1); accordingly, the district court did not commit error, plain 

or otherwise, by imposing the § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) enhancement. See CondeCastaneda, 753 F.3d at 178-79.

As Ramirez-Torres does not assert, much less show, that the district 

court’s denial of a downward departure resulted from its mistaken belief that 

it lacked authority to depart, we lack jurisdiction to review that denial. See 

United States v. Tuma, 738 F.3d 681, 691 (5th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. 

Ct. 2875 (2014). The district court declined to grant Ramirez-Torres’s request 

for a downward variance after listening to his arguments regarding the 

severity of the applicable guidelines range as well as his cultural assimilation, 

familial ties, and employment history in the United States. “[T]he sentencing 

judge is in a superior position to find facts and judge their import under 

§ 3553(a) with respect to a particular defendant.” United States v. Campos-

 Case: 14-20672 Document: 00513178659 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/02/2015
No. 14-20672

3

Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 339 (5th Cir. 2008). Our review reveals no abuse of 

discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 14-20672 Document: 00513178659 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/02/2015