UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4763
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LUIS ANTONIO RAMIREZ, a/k/a AntonioNC1966,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:14-cr-00070-JAB-1)
Submitted: May 5, 2015 Decided: June 1, 2015
Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark R. Sigmon, GRAEBE HANNA & SULLIVAN, PLLC, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Anand P. Ramaswamy, Assistant United
States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Luis Antonio Ramirez appeals the district court’s judgment
sentencing him to 225 months’ imprisonment for enticing and
coercing a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct to
produce child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a),
(e) (2012). In accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), Ramirez’s counsel filed a brief certifying that
there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning
whether the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence.
Ramirez filed a pro se supplemental brief, alleging that his
guilty plea was not entered knowingly and voluntarily and that
trial and appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance.
A defendant’s guilty plea is valid where he voluntarily,
knowingly, and intelligently pleads guilty “with sufficient
awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely
consequences.” Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748
(1970). Because Ramirez did not move to withdraw his plea in
the district court, the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 proceeding is
reviewed for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d
517, 527 (4th Cir. 2002). Our review of the record shows that
the district court complied with Rule 11 and that Ramirez’s plea
was knowing and voluntary.
Next, we review Ramirez’s sentence for reasonableness using
an abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552
2
U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We must first review for “significant
procedural error,” including improperly calculating the
Sentencing Guidelines range, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors, sentencing based on clearly erroneous facts,
or failing to adequately explain the sentence. Id.
If we find no significant procedural error, we examine the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence under “the totality
of the circumstances.” Id. The sentence imposed must be
“sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to satisfy the
goals of sentencing. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012). We
presume on appeal that a sentence within a properly calculated
Guidelines range is reasonable. United States v. Louthian, 756
F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014).
The appellant bears the burden to rebut the presumption by
showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against
the § 3553(a) factors. Id.
Here, Ramirez received an adequate, individualized
explanation of his properly calculated, within-Guidelines
sentence. Our review of the record leads us to conclude that
his sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively
unreasonable.
Finally, we consider whether Ramirez’s trial and appellate
counsel rendered ineffective assistance. “It is well
established that a defendant may raise a claim of ineffective
3
assistance of counsel in the first instance on direct appeal if
and only if it conclusively appears from the record that counsel
did not provide effective assistance.” United States v.
Galloway, 749 F.3d 238, 241 (4th Cir.) (internal quotation
marks, brackets, and ellipsis omitted), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct.
215 (2014). Absent such a showing, ineffective assistance
claims should be raised in a motion brought pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2012), in order to permit sufficient development
of the record. United States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1
(4th Cir. 2010). Having reviewed the record, we conclude that
Ramirez has not made the requisite showing. Thus, if he wishes
to challenge the effectiveness of his counsel, his claim is best
presented in a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Ramirez, in writing, of the right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Ramirez requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Ramirez.
4
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
5