Court Opinion

ID: 9375086
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-24 21:00:56.03608+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:55.849216
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4346      Doc: 30         Filed: 02/23/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-4346

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        FLAVIO RAMIREZ,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:21-cr-00304-D-2)

        Submitted: February 21, 2023                                  Decided: February 23, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Leslie Carter Rawls, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F.
        Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney,
        F. Lee Francis, Special Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
        STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4346      Doc: 30          Filed: 02/23/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Flavio Ramirez appeals the 540-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea

        to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of

        methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846, and distribution

        of 50 grams or more of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of

        methamphetamine and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2, 21 U.S.C.

        § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). Ramirez argues that the sentence is procedurally unreasonable

        because the district court abused its discretion by applying a three-level enhancement under

        U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.1(b) (2021) when calculating Ramirez’s

        advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. We affirm.

               We review “a defendant’s sentence under a deferential abuse-of-discretion

        standard.” United States v. Lewis, 18 F.4th 743, 748 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation

        marks omitted). First, we must determine whether the sentence is procedurally reasonable,

        which generally includes determining if the district court correctly calculated the applicable

        advisory Guidelines range. Id. However, “rather than review the merits of” a defendant’s

        challenge to his advisory Guidelines range, “we may proceed directly to an assumed error

        harmlessness inquiry.” United States v. Gomez-Jimenez, 750 F.3d 370, 382 (4th Cir. 2014)

        (internal quotation marks omitted). In other words, we may assume that the alleged

        Guidelines error occurred and “proceed to examine whether the error affected the sentence

        imposed.” United States v. McDonald, 850 F.3d 640, 643 (4th Cir. 2017). “[W]e can find

        any error harmless if we have (1) knowledge that the district court would have reached the

        same result even if it had decided the [G]uidelines issue the other way, and (2) a

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4346      Doc: 30         Filed: 02/23/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        determination that the sentence would be reasonable even if the [G]uidelines issue had been

        decided in the defendant’s favor.” United States v. Gondres-Medrano, 3 F.4th 708, 721

        (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted).

               Here, the district court stated on the record that it would have imposed the same

        sentence if it had miscalculated the applicable advisory Guidelines range. And upon

        review, we conclude that the 540-month sentence would be substantively reasonable even

        if the district court had resolved the objection to the supervisory role enhancement in

        Ramirez’s favor. We therefore conclude that the potential Guidelines error is harmless,

        and we affirm the criminal judgment. 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

                                                    3