United States v. Joseph Ramirez , 601 F. App'x 593 ( 2015 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAY 07 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-50619
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00315-BRO-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JOSEPH JACOB RAMIREZ, AKA Jamie
Ojeda, AKA Jacob Ramirez, AKA Jimmy
Torres, AKA James Young,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Beverly Reid O’Connell, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted April 7, 2015
Pasadena, California
Before: SILVERMAN and BEA, Circuit Judges and DONATO,** District Judge.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable James Donato, District Judge for the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
Joseph Jacob Ramirez appeals his 90-month sentence imposed by the district
court following his guilty plea to several credit card fraud-related crimes. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), and we affirm.
The district court did not plainly err when it assigned two criminal history
points for a prior assault conviction, in accordance with United States Sentencing
Guideline § 4A1.1(b). Ramirez’s presentence investigation report listed Ramirez’s
sentence for the assault conviction as “120 days jail,” and Ramirez failed to object
to this characterization either in responding to the presentence report or at the
sentencing hearing. We decline to take judicial notice of the Superior Court
documents Ramirez proffers for the first time on appeal, because the documents
are “subject to varying interpretations, and there is a reasonable dispute as to” what
they establish. Reina-Rodriguez v. United States, 655 F.3d 1182, 1193 (9th Cir.
2011).
Nor did the district court plainly err when it imposed a sentence in the
middle of the Sentencing Guidelines range after considering Ramirez’s arguments
for a variance. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a 90-month
sentence. This sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United
-2-
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The district court need not, and indeed “cannot
compare a proposed sentence to the sentence of every criminal defendant who has
ever been sentenced before.” United States v. Treadwell, 593 F.3d 990, 1012 (9th
Cir. 2010).
AFFIRMED.
-3-