US v. Hermes Mendoza-Ramirez
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. HERMES JEOVANY MENDOZA-RAMIREZ, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:06-cr-00058-RLV-CH-1)
April 23, 2009
April 29, 2009
Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Aaron E. Michel, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Adam Morris, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Hermes possession with Jeovany intent to Mendoza-Ramirez distribute at pled least guilty 500 grams to of
cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) (2006) (count one), and unlawful reentry after deportation, 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a),
(b)(2) (2006) (count two).
The Government filed a 21 U.S.C. Based to a
§ 851 (2006) notice alleging a prior felony drug offense. on the prior conviction, Mendoza-Ramirez was sentenced
statutory minimum of 120 months' imprisonment on count one and the guidelines minimum On of 63 months on count two, to run his
sentence, based on the Government's exercise of discretion to file a § 851 information, is unreasonable as it violates the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment. The court Finding no reversible error, we affirm. reviews Mendoza-Ramirez's sentence for
reasonableness under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. See Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 591 (2007). reviewing a sentence, this court must first ensure that In the
district court committed no significant procedural error, such as incorrectly calculating the guideline range. United
States v. Osborne, 514 F.3d 377, 387 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 2525 (2008). The 2 court then considers the
totality of the circumstances. Mendoza-Ramirez was
Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. sentenced to the statutory
mandatory minimum sentence of 120 months' imprisonment and we find the sentence reasonable. to § 851 To the extent on the he posits
discretion to file an information, we find the claim without merit. A prosecutor's discretion to "determine whether a
particular defendant will be subject to the enhanced statutory maximum" is "similar to the discretion a prosecutor exercises when he decides what, if any, charges to bring against a
criminal suspect." 62 (1997). "Such
United States v. LaBonte, 520 U.S. 751, 761discretion is an integral feature of the
criminal justice system, and is appropriate, so long as it is not based upon improper factors." Id. at 762; see also United
States v. Allen, 160 F.3d 1096, 1108 (6th Cir. 1998) (finding no impermissible delegation of authority by Congress in affording discretion to prosecutors to choose between statutes carrying different penalties for identical conduct); United States v.
Cespedes, 151 F.3d 1329, 1334-35 (11th Cir. 1998) (holding § 851 does not improperly delegate legislative power to executive). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. oral argument because the facts and legal We dispense with contentions are
argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?