UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4604
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSEPH GARCIA RAMOS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (2:04-cr-00192-HCM-FBS-1)
Submitted: January 18, 2012 Decided: March 6, 2012
Before KING, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Frances H.
Pratt, Rodolfo Cejas II, Assistant Federal Public Defenders,
Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United
States Attorney, Richard D. Cooke, Assistant United States
Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joseph Garcia Ramos appeals the district court’s order
revoking supervised release and sentencing him to nine months’
incarceration and fifty-one months’ supervised release. Counsel
has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), asserting there are no meritorious issues for appeal but
raising for the court’s consideration the following three
issues: (1) whether the district court failed to consider the
Chapter Seven sentencing range; (2) whether the court improperly
considered rehabilitation as the primary basis for imposing the
sentence; and (3) whether the court imposed a special condition
of supervised release without making the requisite statutory
findings.
Because Ramos has been released from his nine month
period of incarceration, we grant the Government’s motion to
dismiss the appeal from that portion of the appeal challenging
the length of incarceration. See United States v. Hardy, 545
F.3d 280, 283-85 (4th Cir. 2008). In all other respects, we
affirm. We will not disturb that portion of the district
court’s order that imposed as a special condition of supervised
release that Ramos successfully complete a substance abuse
program and if he fails to do so or is found to have used any
illicit substance, the court will order that Ramos not be
permitted to operate a motor vehicle for the duration of his
2
supervised release. We note that Ramos failed to challenge a
similar condition on direct appeal. See United States v.
Johnson, 138 F.3d 115, 117-18 (4th Cir. 1998). We also note
that it is speculation at this juncture that Ramos will violate
a condition that will result in him being prohibited by the
court from operating a motor vehicle.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore grant the Government’s motion to dismiss the
portion of the appeal challenging the period of incarceration
and affirm in all other respects the district court’s order.
This court requires that counsel inform Ramos, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Ramos 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 Ramos.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
3