Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-16-10109/USCOURTS-ca5-16-10109-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Felipe Martinez Ramirez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-10109

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FELIPE MARTINEZ RAMIREZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:15-CR-22-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Felipe Martinez Ramirez was convicted of one count of producing child 

pornography and was sentenced to serve 210 months in prison and ten years 

on supervised release. In the sole issue raised in this appeal, he argues that 

his sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable because U.S.S.G. 

§ 2G2.1 lacks an empirical basis.

As Martinez Ramirez acknowledges, this argument is unavailing under 

United States v. Miller, 665 F.3d 114, 121-22 (5th Cir. 2011), which involved 

U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2. In Miller, we explained that we “will not reject a Guidelines 

provision as unreasonable or irrational simply because it is not based on 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 3, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-10109 Document: 00513745123 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/03/2016
No. 16-10109

2

empirical data and even if it leads to some disparities in sentencing.” 665 F.3d 

at 121-22. Instead, we follow the logic that “[e]mpirically based or not, the 

Guidelines remain the Guidelines.” Id. at 121. The same logic controls here, 

and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Although the logic of Miller is controlling, since it involves a different 

Guideline than that at issue here, we decline to grant summary disposition. 

Nonetheless, because Martinez Ramirez is not entitled to relief, there is no 

need for further briefing. Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary 

affirmance and, in the alternative, an extension of time to file its brief, is 

DENIED. 

 Case: 16-10109 Document: 00513745123 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/03/2016