Opinion ID: 4563601
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: ramos’s sentence is reasonable

Text: Ramos also challenges the length of his prison sentence as substantively unreasonable. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines would ordinarily recommend a sentence of ten to twelve-and-a-half years. But because Ramos had eight prior felony convictions for smallscale drug dealing, the Guidelines classified him as a career offender. That jacked his sentencing range up to thirty years to life. The District Court agreed with the Guidelines’ recommendation. It found that Ramos needed a hefty sentence to deter him from committing more crimes. It added that a long 6 sentence would also deter others from selling drugs, especially near a school. So it sentenced him to thirty years’ imprisonment. That was proper.
We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 45–46 (2007). Ramos must show that “no reasonable sentencing court would have imposed [his] sentence.” United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558, 568 (3d Cir. 2009). There is a “broad range of possible sentences that can be considered reasonable in light of the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Wise, 515 F.3d 207, 218 (3d Cir. 2008). So Ramos bears a heavy burden of proof. B. The sentencing court did not abuse its discretion Ramos has not met his burden. He challenges the District Court’s decision to follow the Sentencing Guidelines and to find a thirty-year sentence necessary for deterrence. But both conclusions were reasonable. 1. The court reasonably followed the Sentencing Guidelines. Ramos argues that even though the career-offender enhancement applies, the District Court should have rejected it because it was not designed for small-time criminals like him. He points out that he is no drug kingpin and has no violent convictions. And he notes that the Sentencing Commission has recommended that Congress remove felons like him from its scope. But what Ramos’s criminal history lacks in severity, it makes up for in quantity. Though he needed only two prior felony drug convictions to trigger the enhancement, he had eight. And other factors made it worse: Ramos once escaped from a drug-rehab facility to which he had been sentenced. Four times, courts had to issue bench warrants because he failed to 7 appear. And he committed many of his crimes while on probation for other crimes. Given his copious criminal record, the court reasonably treated him as a career offender. 2. The district judge reasonably concluded that Ramos needed a long sentence to deter him, as well as others. Ramos also argues that because his prior sentences were each under two years, we cannot rule out that a ten- to twelve-year sentence would have sufficed to deter him. But no sentencing rule requires judges to escalate penalties gradually until one sticks. Sometimes, severe sentences are apt even for defendants with no criminal history. And Ramos’s record was extensive. Given his repeated flouting of the law and his repeated failures to learn his lesson, a judge could reasonably find that he needed a long sentence to deter him, as well as others.