UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4763

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LUIS ANTONIO RAMIREZ, a/k/a AntonioNC1966,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,

Senior District Judge. (1:14-cr-00070-JAB-1)

Submitted: May 5, 2015 Decided: June 1, 2015

Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark R. Sigmon, GRAEBE HANNA & SULLIVAN, PLLC, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Anand P. Ramaswamy, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Luis Antonio Ramirez appeals the district court’s judgment 

sentencing him to 225 months’ imprisonment for enticing and 

coercing a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct to 

produce child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), 

(e) (2012). In accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 

738 (1967), Ramirez’s counsel filed a brief certifying that 

there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning 

whether the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence. 

Ramirez filed a pro se supplemental brief, alleging that his 

guilty plea was not entered knowingly and voluntarily and that 

trial and appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance.

A defendant’s guilty plea is valid where he voluntarily, 

knowingly, and intelligently pleads guilty “with sufficient 

awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely 

consequences.” Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748 

(1970). Because Ramirez did not move to withdraw his plea in 

the district court, the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 proceeding is 

reviewed for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 

517, 527 (4th Cir. 2002). Our review of the record shows that 

the district court complied with Rule 11 and that Ramirez’s plea 

was knowing and voluntary.

Next, we review Ramirez’s sentence for reasonableness using 

an abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 
3

U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We must first review for “significant 

procedural error,” including improperly calculating the 

Sentencing Guidelines range, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) factors, sentencing based on clearly erroneous facts, 

or failing to adequately explain the sentence. Id.

If we find no significant procedural error, we examine the 

substantive reasonableness of the sentence under “the totality 

of the circumstances.” Id. The sentence imposed must be 

“sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to satisfy the 

goals of sentencing. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012). We 

presume on appeal that a sentence within a properly calculated 

Guidelines range is reasonable. United States v. Louthian, 756 

F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014). 

The appellant bears the burden to rebut the presumption by 

showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against 

the § 3553(a) factors. Id.

Here, Ramirez received an adequate, individualized 

explanation of his properly calculated, within-Guidelines 

sentence. Our review of the record leads us to conclude that 

his sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively 

unreasonable.

Finally, we consider whether Ramirez’s trial and appellate 

counsel rendered ineffective assistance. “It is well 

established that a defendant may raise a claim of ineffective 
4

assistance of counsel in the first instance on direct appeal if 

and only if it conclusively appears from the record that counsel 

did not provide effective assistance.” United States v. 

Galloway, 749 F.3d 238, 241 (4th Cir.) (internal quotation 

marks, brackets, and ellipsis omitted), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 

215 (2014). Absent such a showing, ineffective assistance 

claims should be raised in a motion brought pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 (2012), in order to permit sufficient development 

of the record. United States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 

(4th Cir. 2010). Having reviewed the record, we conclude that 

Ramirez has not made the requisite showing. Thus, if he wishes 

to challenge the effectiveness of his counsel, his claim is best 

presented in a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in 

this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We 

therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court 

requires that counsel inform Ramirez, in writing, of the right 

to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further 

review. If Ramirez requests that a petition be filed, but 

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then 

counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from 

representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof 

was served on Ramirez.
5

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED