UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
________________________________
No. 95-30382
________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
FRANCISCO RAMIREZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
(CR-94-194-M)
_________________________________________________________________
April 4, 1997
Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Francisco Ramirez, who pleaded guilty to one count of money
laundering, contends that his sentence was the result of sentencing
manipulation or entrapment, that the district court erred by
sentencing him based upon the completed, rather than attempted,
offense of money laundering, and that his guilty plea was
involuntary.
*
Pursuant to Local 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
Because Ramirez was informed, inter alia, of the maximum
possible penalty, he was aware of the consequences of pleading
guilty. See United States v. Guerra, 94 F.3d 989 (5th Cir. 1996).
His claim that he was unable to understand the proceedings is
refuted by the following: he averred that he fully understood the
proceedings; that he understood the maximum possible penalty; and
that he had understood the interpreter who was present during his
meetings with his attorney.
Among other factors, Ramirez initiated the transaction and
chose not to withdraw when given the opportunity; therefore, the
district court did not err by rejecting Ramirez’s claims of
sentencing manipulation or entrapment. See United States v.
Tremelling, 43 F.3d 148, 151 (5th Cir.) cert. denied, 115 S.Ct.
1990 (1995).
Ramirez’s claims that he never received the funds to be
laundered and had not made arrangements for laundering the money
are refuted by the record. For these, among other reasons, the
district court did not err by sentencing Ramirez based upon the
completed offense. See United States v. Richardson, 925 F.2d 112,
116 (5th Cir. 1991).
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment is
AFFIRMED.