US v. Joseph Ramo

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to dismiss appeal in part [998791719-2] Originating case number: 2:04-cr-00192-HCM-FBS-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [998803480]. [11-4604]

Appeal: 11-4604

Document: 33

Date Filed: 03/06/2012

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-4604

Document: 33

Date Filed: 03/06/2012

Page: 2 of 3

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.
has

filed

a

brief

under

Anders

v.

California,

Counsel

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).
affirm.

We

will

not

disturb

In all other respects, we

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

Appeal: 11-4604

Document: 33

Date Filed: 03/06/2012

supervised release.
similar

condition

Page: 3 of 3

We note that Ramos failed to challenge a
on

direct

appeal.

See

United

Johnson, 138 F.3d 115, 117-18 (4th Cir. 1998).

States

v.

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

representation.

in

this

court

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Ramos.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART

3