United States v. Julio Ramirez

Case: 17-50261 Document: 00514386859 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/14/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 17-50261 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit Summary Calendar FILED March 14, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff−Appellee versus JULIO CESAR RAMIREZ, Defendant−Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas No. 7:16-CR-126-1 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Julio Ramirez pleaded guilty of conspiring to possess with intent to * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Case: 17-50261 Document: 00514386859 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/14/2018 No. 17-50261 distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine. The district court sen- tenced Ramirez within the advisory guideline range to 235 months of im- prisonment and five years of supervised release. Ramirez appeals the sen- tence, claiming that the court relied on unreliable co-conspirator statements to determine the amount of methamphetamine attributable to him through rele- vant conduct. Ramirez has not shown that the court clearly erred in adopting the finding in the presentence report (“PSR”) that he was responsible for a drug quantity that resulted in a base offense level of 36 under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(a)(5). See United States v. Betancourt, 422 F.3d 240, 246 (5th Cir. 2005). The PSR stated that the drug quantity attributable to Ramirez was based on co-conspirator statements and on drugs that were confiscated by law enforcement. The PSR had sufficient indicia of reliability to be considered as evidence, because it was based on information that a case agent obtained from other members of the drug conspiracy. See United States v. Gomez-Alvarez, 781 F.3d 787, 796 (5th Cir. 2015). Ramirez failed to prove that the information in the PSR concerning the multi-pound quantities of methamphetamine was “materially untrue, inaccurate or unreliable.” United States v. Harris, 702 F.3d 226, 230 (5th Cir. 2012). AFFIRMED. 2