Court Opinion

ID: 9401138
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-10 21:00:34.952231+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:50.958390
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4655      Doc: 27         Filed: 06/09/2023    Pg: 1 of 7

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-4655

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        GASPER RAMIREZ, a/k/a Casper,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:19-cr-00060-DCN-1)

        Submitted: February 16, 2023                                         Decided: June 9, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: William W. Watkins, Sr., WILLIAM W. WATKINS, PA, Columbia, South
        Carolina, for Appellant. Jamie L. Schoen, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
        ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4655      Doc: 27         Filed: 06/09/2023      Pg: 2 of 7

        PER CURIAM:

               Gasper Ramirez pled guilty, pursuant to a Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) plea

        agreement, to conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute and distribute one kilogram

        or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of heroin and 500 grams

        or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, in

        violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846; possession with the intent to

        distribute 100 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of

        heroin and 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of

        methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)-(B); and conspiracy to

        commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). After reviewing the

        presentence report, Ramirez objected to the two-level firearm enhancement and the four-

        level leadership enhancement. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual §§ 2D1.1(b)(1),

        3B1.1(a) (2018). The district court overruled Ramirez’s objections and sentenced him to

        the stipulated sentence of 180 months’ imprisonment.

               Ramirez’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

        (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether

        the district court clearly erred in applying the firearm and leadership enhancements. *

        Ramirez was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done

               *
                 Counsel also questions whether Ramirez’s appellate waiver is valid. We need not
        consider this issue because the Government has not sought to enforce the waiver, and we
        decline to enforce such waivers sua sponte. See United States v. Jones, 667 F.3d 477, 486
        (4th Cir. 2012).

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4655       Doc: 27         Filed: 06/09/2023      Pg: 3 of 7

        so. The Government has declined to file a brief. We affirm but remand for correction of

        a clerical error.

               We review a criminal sentence for reasonableness “under a deferential abuse-of-

        discretion standard.” United States v. Williams, 5 F.4th 500, 505 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,

        142 S. Ct. 625 (2021). In so doing, “we must first ensure that the district court committed

        no significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating the Guidelines range.” Id.

        (internal quotation marks omitted).

               Before assessing whether the district court properly applied the challenged

        enhancements, we conclude that the court correctly determined that the need to avoid

        unwarranted sentencing disparities is not relevant to whether the facts supported the

        enhancements in Ramirez’s case. In any event, “a sentence is not unreasonable under

        [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a)(6) merely because it creates a disparity with a co-defendant’s

        sentence.” United States v. Gillespie, 27 F.4th 934, 945 (4th Cir.) (internal quotation marks

        omitted), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 164 (2022). Rather, “the kind of disparity with which

        § 3553(a)(6) is concerned is an unjustified difference across judges (or districts) rather than

        among defendants to a single case,” United States v. Pyles, 482 F.3d 282, 290

        (4th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted), vacated on other grounds, 552 U.S.

        1089 (2008).

               “In assessing [a defendant’s] challenge to the district court’s Guidelines application,

        we review factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo.” United States v.

        Boyd, 55 F.4th 272, 276 (4th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Clear error

        exists when after reviewing all the evidence, we are left with the definite and firm

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4655      Doc: 27          Filed: 06/09/2023     Pg: 4 of 7

        conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Legins, 34 F.4th 304, 325

        (4th Cir.) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 266 (2022).

               Turning to the firearm enhancement, the Guidelines instruct that a defendant’s base

        offense level should be increased by two “[i]f a dangerous weapon (including a firearm)

        was possessed” in connection with the drug offense.            USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1).       The

        commentary explains that the firearm enhancement “reflects the increased danger of

        violence when drug traffickers possess weapons” and “should be applied if the weapon was

        present, unless it is clearly improbable that the weapon was connected with the offense.”

        USSG § 2D1.1 cmt. n.11(A). And “we have held that the enhancement is proper when the

        weapon was possessed in connection with drug activity that was part of the same course of

        conduct or common scheme as the offense of conviction.” United States v. Mondragon,

        860 F.3d 227, 231 (4th Cir. 2017) (cleaned up).

               “The government bears the initial burden of proving, by a preponderance of the

        evidence, that the weapon was possessed in connection with the relevant illegal drug

        activity.” Id. The government “need not prove precisely concurrent acts, such as a gun in

        hand while in the act of storing drugs or drugs in hand while in the act of retrieving a gun.”

        Id. (cleaned up). Instead, “the government need prove only that the weapon was present,

        which it may do by establishing a temporal and spatial relation linking the weapon, the

        drug trafficking activity, and the defendant.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). If the

        government meets this burden, “the sentencing court presumes that the weapon was

        possessed in connection with the relevant drug activity and applies the enhancement, unless

                                                      4
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4655      Doc: 27         Filed: 06/09/2023     Pg: 5 of 7

        the defendant rebuts the presumption by showing that such a connection was clearly

        improbable.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

               We conclude that the government established the necessary temporal and spatial

        proximity linking the firearm to Ramirez and the drug-trafficking conspiracy and that

        Ramirez did not demonstrate that it was clearly improbable that the firearm was possessed

        in connection with the conspiracy. Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err in

        applying the firearm enhancement.

               As for the leadership enhancement, the Guidelines instruct that a defendant’s

        offense level should be increased by four if he “was an organizer or leader of a criminal

        activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive.” USSG

        § 3B1.1(a). “To qualify for an adjustment under this section, the defendant must have been

        the organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of one or more other participants.” USSG

        § 3B1.1 cmt. n.2. The district court considers several factors in determining whether a role

        enhancement should be applied, including:

               the exercise of decision making authority, the nature of participation in the
               commission of the offense, the recruitment of accomplices, the claimed right
               to a larger share of the fruits of the crime, the degree of participation in
               planning or organizing the offense, the nature and scope of the illegal
               activity, and the degree of control and authority exercised over others.

        USSG § 3B1.1 cmt. n.4; see United States v. Thorson, 633 F.3d 312, 318-20 (4th Cir. 2011)

        (discussing and affirming leadership enhancement).

               There is no dispute that the conspiracy involved five or more participants. And we

        conclude that there was ample evidence that Ramirez served as a leader or organizer of the

                                                     5
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4655       Doc: 27        Filed: 06/09/2023      Pg: 6 of 7

        conspiracy. Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err in applying the leadership

        enhancement.

               In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have

        found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.

        Our review, however, revealed that the district court’s recommendations to the Bureau of

        Prisons announced at sentencing do not match the recommendations in the written

        judgment. Specifically, the court omitted from the written judgment its recommendation

        that Ramirez be allowed to participate in programming “as soon as possible” and its

        recommendation that Ramirez “be given favorable consideration at the end of his sentence

        for the maximum time release, assuming he qualifies at that time.”            Transcript of

        Sentencing at 30, United States v. Ramirez, No. 2:19-cr-00060-DCN-1 (D.S.C.

        Jan. 13, 2022), ECF No. 1270. Accordingly, we remand so that the district court may

        include in its written judgment all of the recommendations it pronounced at sentencing.

        See Fed. R. Crim. P. 36; United States v. Rogers, 961 F.3d 291, 296 (4th Cir. 2020) (“[I]f

        a conflict arises between the orally pronounced sentence and the written judgment, then

        the oral sentence controls.”).

               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. We dispense with oral argument because

                                                     6
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4655      Doc: 27         Filed: 06/09/2023     Pg: 7 of 7

        the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court

        and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                  AFFIRMED AND REMANDED

                                                    7