Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-13-10265/USCOURTS-ca5-13-10265-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mario Alberto Ramirez-Avitua
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-10265

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARIO ALBERTO RAMIREZ-AVITUA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:12-CR-47-1

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mario Alberto Ramirez-Avitua (Ramirez) appeals his sentence for illegal 

reentry after deportation. Ramirez argues that the Government impermissibly 

withheld the third-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under 

U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b). 

Ramirez contends that based on Amendment 775 to the Sentencing 

Guidelines, which applies to cases pending on appeal, United States v. Villegas 

 

* 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

October 19, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 13-10265 Document: 00513235982 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/19/2015
No. 13-10265

2

Palacios, 756 F.3d 325, 326 & n.1 (5th Cir. 2014), the Government should not 

withhold a motion for the additional one-level reduction merely because a 

defendant does not agree to waive his right to appeal. See United States v. 

Garcia-Carrillo, 749 F.3d 376, 377 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 676 (2014). 

Because Ramirez did not raise this argument in the district court, our review 

is for plain error. See United States v. Morales-Rodriguez, 788 F.3d 441, 443 

& n.3 (5th Cir. 2015). 

There is no evidence in the record regarding the Government’s reason for 

not moving for the third-level reduction. Thus, Ramirez cannot establish clear 

or obvious error in connection with the Government’s decision not to so move. 

See id. at 443-44. 

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 13-10265 Document: 00513235982 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/19/2015