United States v. Luis Ramos , 564 F. App'x 2 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4725
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
LUIS ELRIQUE RAMOS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:13-cr-00033-TDS-1)
Submitted: March 27, 2014 Decided: March 31, 2014
Before MOTZ, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lisa S. Costner, LISA S. COSTNER, P.A., Winston-Salem, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Luis Elrique Ramos appeals his conviction and 10-month
sentence imposed following his guilty plea to failure to
register as a sex offender, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a)
(2012). On appeal, Ramos’ counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding that there
are no meritorious issues for appeal. Ramos was notified of his
right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so.
The Government has declined to file a response brief. Following
a careful review of the record, we affirm.
Before accepting Ramos’ guilty plea, the district
court conducted a thorough plea colloquy, fully complying with
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and ensuring that Ramos’ plea was knowing,
voluntary, and supported by an independent factual basis. See
United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 1991).
The court followed all necessary procedural steps in sentencing
Ramos, properly calculating his Guidelines range, considering
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors and the parties’
arguments, and providing an individualized assessment based on
the facts presented. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007). Ramos’ within-Guidelines sentence of imprisonment is
presumed substantively reasonable on appeal, and he has not met
his burden to rebut this presumption. See United States v.
Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006). And although
2
the district court varied upward in imposing a term of
supervised release, citing the need for deterrence, we conclude
the court’s judgment in this regard was not unreasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Ramos’ conviction and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform Ramos, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Ramos 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 Ramos.
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