NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 14 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 18-50235
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:17-cr-04424-BEN-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JOHNNY RAMIREZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 11, 2019**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Johnny Ramirez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the 108-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Ramirez contends that the district court erred by failing to recalculate the
Guidelines range after revising the statutory mandatory minimum sentence under
18 U.S.C. § 3553(e). Contrary to his contention, however, United States v. Lee,
725 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 2013), did not require such a recalculation here. In Lee,
the district court “manipulate[d] the calculations under the Sentencing Guidelines
in order to produce a Guidelines range that [would] allow it to impose the sentence
it prefer[red].” Id. at 1164. By contrast, here, the district court started with the
correctly calculated Guidelines range, varied downward to the mandatory
minimum under 18 U.S.C § 3553(a), and then departed downward 12 months to
reflect Ramirez’s substantial assistance. While the record is unclear whether the
district court understood that 108 months was the new mandatory minimum, any
error did not prejudice Ramirez. Unlike in Lee, where the district court did not
assign an absolute value to the defendant’s substantial assistance, making it
impossible to determine whether the sentence imposed was “lower or higher than
the revised statutory minimum,” id. at 1168, the record here makes clear that the
court determined that Ramirez’s substantial assistance warranted a 12-month
reduction from the original mandatory minimum.
Ramirez also contends that the district court erred by failing to consider
independently the value of his cooperation under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 and 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(e). The record reflects, however, that the district court independently
2 18-50235
evaluated the extent of Ramirez’s cooperation by examining the record, hearing the
parties’ arguments, and determining that the government’s evaluation was
reasonable. See United States v. Laney, 189 F.3d 954, 964 (9th Cir. 1999). The
district court did not err by giving the government’s evaluation of Ramirez’s
cooperation “substantial weight.” See U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 cmt. n.3; Laney, 189 F.3d
at 964.
AFFIRMED.
3 18-50235
United States v. Johnny Ramirez
Combined Opinion