United States v. Ramseur ( 2021 )

Case: 20-11112 Document: 00515908016 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/21/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 21, 2021
No. 20-11112
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Robert Earl Ramseur,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:19-CR-89-1
Before Wiener, Southwick, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Robert Earl Ramseur appeals from the sentence imposed following his
bench trial conviction for failure to surrender for service of sentence and
being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court sentenced
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-11112 Document: 00515908016 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/21/2021
No. 20-11112
Ramseur to a below-guidelines term of 44 months of imprisonment and 3
years of supervised release.
Ramseur first argues that the district court erred by increasing his
sentence under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice without a specific
finding that his presentation of false testimony was willful. Because Ramseur
did not object to the obstruction adjustment on the same ground he now
raises on appeal, we will review this issue for plain error only. See United
States v. Huerta, 182 F.3d 361, 366 (5th Cir. 1999).
We have held there is a “requirement that the district court find that
the defendant ‘willfully’ obstructed or attempted to obstruct justice.”
United States v. Greer, 158 F.3d 228, 239 (5th Cir. 1998). In this case, the
district court found that Ramseur’s testimony at his bench trial was not
credible and that he “did not tell [the] truth in his testimony.” Moreover,
the presentence report (“PSR”) contained more specific findings, which the
district court adopted in its statement of reasons, that Ramseur committed
perjury and willfully obstructed justice. We have held that a district court’s
adoption of the PSR’s adequate findings may support an obstruction
adjustment. See United States v. Perez-Solis, 709 F.3d 453, 469–71 (5th Cir.
2013). In any event, Ramseur cannot show reversible error based solely on
the lack of a specific finding by the district court regarding willfulness. See
Huerta, 182 F.3d at 366.
Ramseur next challenges a special condition for supervised release
that the district court imposed. That condition states: “The defendant shall
not incur new credit charges or open additional lines of credit without
approval of the probation officer unless the probation officer makes a
determination that the defendant has fully satisfied the restitution obligation
in Case No. 3:16-CR-065-N.” The case referenced in this condition involves
Ramseur’s prior convictions for willfully assisting the preparation of false
2
Case: 20-11112 Document: 00515908016 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/21/2021
No. 20-11112
income tax returns. See United States v. Ramseur, 830 F. App’x 737, 737 (5th
Cir. 2020).
For the first time on appeal, Ramseur challenges this condition on the
ground that the district court overstepped its bounds by imposing a condition
that is contingent on the repayment of restitution in a separate case. Because
he did not object on this basis when he had the opportunity to do so at
sentencing, we review this challenge for plain error only. See United States v.
Diggles, 957 F.3d 551, 559–60 (5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 825(2020). The Government acknowledges that the district court’s imposition
of this condition in reference to another case is not specifically countenanced
in U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(d)(2) (policy statement), but it correctly argues that
Ramseur has failed to show reversible error in this regard. Ramseur’s lack of
authority supporting his challenge fails to establish clear or obvious error. See
United States v. Segura, 747 F.3d 323, 330 (5th Cir. 2014). Moreover, because
Ramseur is subject to this condition in his amended judgment for preparing
false tax returns, he cannot show that the imposition of this condition in the
instant case affected his substantial rights or merits the exercise of this
court’s discretion. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).
The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
3