United States v. Ramos ( 2021 )

Case: 20-50527 Document: 00515906598 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/21/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 20-50527 June 21, 2021
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Enrique Ramos, Jr.,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 4:19-CR-155-1
Before King, Smith, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Enrique Ramos, Jr., appeals his conviction and 63-month, within-
guidelines sentence for possessing a firearm as a felon in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He argues that his sentence is procedurally and
substantively unreasonable and that it violates the Eighth Amendment’s
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-50527 Document: 00515906598 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/21/2021
No. 20-50527
prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and his right to equal
protection. He also argues that the district court was biased.
We engage in a bifurcated review of the sentence imposed by a district
court. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We first consider
whether the district court committed a “significant procedural error,” such
as failing to adequately explain the sentence. United States v. Odom, 694 F.3d
544, 547 (5th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. If there is no procedural error, or if any such error is
harmless, we “may proceed to the second step and review the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence imposed for an abuse of discretion.” Odom,
694 F.3d at 547.
Because Ramos did not object that the district court had failed to state
reasons for its sentence, we review this argument for plain error. See Puckett
v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). To prevail on plain-error review,
a defendant must show that an error occurred, that it was clear or obvious,
and that it affected his substantial rights. Id. If those factors are established,
the decision to correct the forfeited error is within the court’s sound
discretion if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public
reputation of judicial proceedings. Id.The record shows that the district court read the medical information,
letters from Ramos’s family, and Ramos’s sentencing memorandum, and
considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. We can infer from the record that
the district court imposed a sentence at the top of the guidelines range based
on Ramos’s lengthy criminal history, including many outstanding warrants
at the time of his arrest, and the need to deter him from additional criminal
activity and to promote respect for the law. See United States v. Whitelaw,
580 F.3d 256, 263 (5th Cir. 2009). While its statement of reasons was brief,
it was legally sufficient. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007).
2
Case: 20-50527 Document: 00515906598 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/21/2021
No. 20-50527
We review Ramos’s preserved challenge to the substantive
reasonableness of his sentence under an abuse-of-discretion standard. See
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Contrary to Ramos’s assertion, it is well-settled in this
court that a sentence within a properly calculated guideline range is entitled
to a presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551,
554 (5th Cir. 2006); see Rita, 551 U.S. at 347. The record shows that the
district court considered Ramos’s sentencing memorandum and the attached
materials. Ramos has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness by
showing that the district court failed to account for a factor that should have
received significant weight or that it gave “significant weight to an irrelevant
or improper factor,” and the sentence does not represent “a clear error of
judgment in balancing the sentencing factors.” United States v. Cooks, 589
F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). Ramos has not shown that his sentence was
unreasonable.
Ramos next argues that the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and
its detrimental effect on prisoners’ health and safety renders his sentence
cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment. He suggests that a review
on direct appeal of whether a sentence was cruel and unusual can include
consideration of prison conditions, but he does not cite any precedent for this
proposition. We typically review an Eighth Amendment challenge de novo.
See United States v. Smith, 895 F.3d 410, 418 (5th Cir. 2018). Ramos raised a
general Eighth Amendment objection but did not present the arguments that
he raises on appeal. Because he cannot prevail under any potentially
applicable standard, we need not resolve the standard of review. See United
States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519, 525 (5th Cir. 2008).
The Eighth Amendment prohibits sentences that are grossly
disproportionate to the offense, and Ramos’s 63-month, within-guidelines
sentence is clearly not grossly disproportionate to possessing a firearm as a
felon. See Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263, 271-72, 284-85 (1980). Ramos
3
Case: 20-50527 Document: 00515906598 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/21/2021
No. 20-50527
may raise his prison condition claims in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action or may
request compassionate release under the First Step Act, see First Step Act,
Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239 (2018).
Ramos also contends that the Guidelines violate his right to equal
protection under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. While he
raised a general objection in the district court, he argues for the first time on
appeal that his sentence violates equal protection because he was “sentenced
based on an overstated criminal history score that is predicated on offenses
that indicate that he is Hispanic, indigent, and was an active addict during the
time these offenses occurred” and that a similarly situated white middle class
or affluent person was “unlikely to possess a criminal history that includes
multiple failure to maintain financial liability type offenses,” to have “a long
history of untreated substance abuse,” or “to have been racially targeted
while driving, or arrested pretextually and searched for controlled
substances.” Because Ramos cannot prevail under any potentially applicable
standard, we decline to resolve the standard of review. See Rodriguez, 523
F.3d at 525.
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits
states from “deny[ing] to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.” U.S. Const. amend. 14, § 1. “This clause is
implicitly incorporated into the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due
process.” Brackeen v. Haaland, 994 F.3d 249, 332 (5th Cir. 2021). The same
analysis applies to equal protection claims under both the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments. Id. To maintain an equal protection claim, Ramos
must “prove that he received treatment different from that received by
similarly situated individuals and that the unequal treatment stemmed from
a discriminatory intent.” Taylor v. Johnson, 257 F.3d 470, 473 (5th Cir.
2001).
4
Case: 20-50527 Document: 00515906598 Page: 5 Date Filed: 06/21/2021
No. 20-50527
Rational basis review applies as Ramos focuses solely on the impact of
the Guidelines and does not argue that they were implemented with a
discriminatory animus or purpose. See United States v. Cherry, 50 F.3d 338,
343 (5th Cir. 1995). Under rational basis review, a “penalty scheme will
survive the equal protection challenge if this Court finds the scheme
rationally related to a legitimate government purpose.” Id. at 344.
Ramos concedes that there is a compelling government interest in
protecting the public from repeat offenders, and he argues that the
Guidelines are not narrowly tailored and therefore do not survive strict
scrutiny, but he does not address the sentencing scheme under rational basis
review. See id. Ramos has not overcome the strong presumption of the
validity of the Guidelines or shown that the district court committed error,
plain or otherwise, in overruling his equal protection challenge. See Flores-
Ledezma v. Gonzales, 415 F.3d 375, 381 (5th Cir. 2005).
In his final issue, Ramos has presented no evidence of bias. The
district court denied as moot his motion to seal the sentencing memorandum
because it was automatically sealed without request for leave; the sentencing
memorandum and attachments were entered into the record; and the record
shows that Ramos had no objections to the presentence report.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
5