You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

United States v. Ramos-Contreras

Citation: 193 F. App'x 732Docket: No. 05-30065

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; July 28, 2006; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this case, the appellant challenged the 77-month sentence imposed for illegal re-entry after deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The court maintained jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirmed the district court's sentence. The primary legal issue involved the application of a sentencing enhancement based on a prior felony drug trafficking conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). The court determined that the enhancement was appropriately applied without requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt or the defendant's admission, consistent with precedents set in *United States v. Booker* and *Almendarez-Torres*. Additionally, the court upheld the district court's denial of a downward departure for early disposition, as no offer was made by the prosecutor, reflecting established jurisprudence that such departures cannot be mandated in the absence of a fast-track program. The court further found no error in the district court's refusal to grant a downward departure based on the defendant's acknowledgment of deportation, aligned with *United States v. Martinez-Ramos*. Ultimately, the court ruled that the sentence was reasonable, having considered the guidelines and the factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The disposition is unpublished and non-citable within the circuit, as directed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Legal Issues Addressed

Citation Restrictions under 9th Cir. R. 36-3

Application: The disposition of the case is not published and is restricted from citation within the circuit.

Reasoning: The disposition is not for publication and is restricted from citation in this circuit, per 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Denial of Downward Departure for Early Disposition

Application: The court upheld the denial of a downward departure for early disposition, emphasizing that such an offer was not made by the prosecutor and aligning with precedent that early disposition cannot be mandated without a fast-track program.

Reasoning: The court also upheld the denial of a downward departure for early disposition, noting that the prosecutor did not make such an offer. This aligns with prior rulings indicating that early disposition cannot be mandated where no fast-track program exists.

Reasonableness of Sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

Application: The district court's sentence was affirmed as reasonable after considering the guidelines range and relevant statutory factors.

Reasoning: The district court properly calculated the guidelines range and considered relevant statutory factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), concluding that the imposed sentence was reasonable.

Sentencing Enhancement under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2)

Application: The district court applied a sentencing enhancement based on the defendant's prior felony drug trafficking conviction, which did not necessitate an admission by the defendant or proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Reasoning: The district court correctly applied a sentencing enhancement under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) due to Ramos-Contreras' prior felony drug trafficking conviction, which does not require admission by the defendant or proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as established in *United States v. Booker* and *Almendarez-Torres*.