United States v. Ramos , 169 F. App'x 865 ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT March 6, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-10684
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
SALVADOR RAMOS
Defendant - Appellant
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:04-CR-165-3
--------------------
Before KING, WIENER and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
A jury convicted Salvador Ramos of conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute a controlled substance and possession
with intent to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii), and 21 U.S.C. § 846.
First, Ramos argues that the district court abused its
discretion when it did not admit into evidence the Government’s
motion to dismiss co-defendant Isaias Pintor.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 05-10684
-2-
The Pintor motion does not discuss Ramos’s involvement in
the offense. Unlike Pintor’s relatively minor role in the
offense, Ramos acted as the supplier of methamphetamine and
participated in planning the transaction that resulted in his
arrest. Pintor’s dismissal does not make it any more or less
probable that Ramos was innocent, and the Government’s motion to
dismiss Pintor was therefore not relevant to Ramos’s case. See
FED. R. EVID. 401. Even if the evidence is considered relevant,
it was properly excluded because the evidence was cumulative of
trial testimony that showed the questionable character of the co-
defendants who testified against Ramos. See FED. R. EVID. 403.
The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion when it
excluded the Pintor motion. See United States v. Taylor, 210
F.3d 311, 314 (5th Cir. 2000).
Second, Pintor argues that the district court erred when it
applied a sentencing enhancement for possession of a firearm
pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). Ramos argues that there was
no direct evidence that he reasonably foresaw that weapons would
be involved in the offense.
One of Ramos’s co-defendants dropped a firearm when law
enforcement officials attempted to arrest him after he had
delivered drugs to the undercover officer. Another firearm was
found in the trunk of a vehicle that was used in the drug
transaction and that belonged to one of Ramos’s co-defendants.
Evidence thus establishes that a codefendant knowingly possessed
No. 05-10684
-3-
a gun while he and Ramos jointly engaging in concerted criminal
activity involving a quantity of narcotics sufficient to support
an inference of intent to distribute. See United States v.
Thomas, 120 F.3d 564, 574 (5th Cir. 1997). The sentencing court
therefore did not commit error, clear or otherwise, when it
inferred that Ramos should have foreseen his codefendants’s
possession of a dangerous weapon and applied the U.S.S.G.
§ 2D1.1(b)(1) weapons enhancement. See id.
For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the district court
is AFFIRMED.