US v. Ruben Perez-Ruiz

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:13-cr-00056-MOC-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999578489].. [14-4565]

Appeal: 14-4565

Doc: 49

Filed: 05/06/2015

Pg: 1 of 9

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4565

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RUBEN PEREZ-RUIZ, a/k/a Sarco,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:13-cr-00056-MOC-1)

Submitted:

February 27, 2015

Decided:

May 6, 2015

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul F. Herzog, PAUL F. HERZOG, P.A., Fayetteville, North
Carolina, for Appellant.
Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United
States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4565

Doc: 49

Filed: 05/06/2015

Pg: 2 of 9

PER CURIAM:
Ruben Perez-Ruiz appeals from his conviction and 200-month
sentence imposed pursuant to his guilty plea to conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base.

On

appeal,

to

Perez-Ruiz’s

counsel

submitted

a

brief

pursuant

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there
are

no

meritorious

issues.

grounds

for

appeal,

but

raising

several

Although advised of his right to do so, Perez-Ruiz has

not filed a supplemental brief.
a brief. *

The Government declined to file

After a thorough review of the record, we affirm.
I.

Perez-Ruiz

first

assistance of counsel.

asserts

that

290,

295

(4th

received

ineffective

Claims of ineffective assistance are not

usually cognizable on direct appeal.
F.3d

he

Cir.

1997).

United States v. King, 119
To

allow

for

adequate

development of the record, a defendant generally must bring his
ineffective
motion.
where

assistance

claims

in

King, 119 F.3d at 295.
the

record

a

U.S.C.

§

2255

(2012)

An exception exists, however,

conclusively

*

28

establishes

ineffective

In addition, the Government has not filed a motion to
dismiss based upon Perez-Ruiz’s appellate waiver in his plea
agreement. We decline to raise the waiver sua sponte.

2

Appeal: 14-4565

Doc: 49

assistance.

Filed: 05/06/2015

Pg: 3 of 9

United States v. Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th

Cir. 2006).
Perez-Ruiz contends that counsel discussed the presentence
report with him in an untimely manner.
indication

from

performance

the

record

that

below

an

falling

However, there is no

trial

counsel

objective

rendered

standard

reasonableness or that Perez-Ruiz was prejudiced.

of

The court

offered Perez-Ruiz extra time to discuss the PSR, and Perez-Ruiz
stated that he was prepared to go forward.

Moreover, the record

does not disclose any meritorious objections that would have
been aided by extra consultation.

Thus, because the record does

not conclusively establish ineffective assistance, this claim is
not cognizable in this appeal.
II.
Counsel next questions whether the Government engaged in
misconduct during Perez-Ruiz’s prosecution.

To succeed on a

claim of prosecutorial misconduct, the defendant must prove that
the prosecution’s conduct was, in fact, improper, and that he
was deprived of a fair trial because of the prejudicial conduct.
United
Here,

States
counsel

v.

Allen,

does

not

prosecutorial

misconduct,

disclosed

evidence

no

of

491

F.3d

point
and

to
our

178,
any

3

(4th

specific

review

misconduct.

meritless.

191

of

Thus,

the

Cir.

2007).

instance

of

record

has

this

claim

is

Appeal: 14-4565

Doc: 49

Filed: 05/06/2015

Pg: 4 of 9

III.
Perez-Ruiz argues that the district court erred in applying
the

enhancement

under

U.S.

Sentencing

Guidelines

Manual

§ 2D1.1(b)(1) (2013), for possession of a firearm because there
was insufficient evidence that he possessed the firearm found
buried near a “stash trailer” or that the firearm was connected
to the drug activity for which he was convicted.
a

challenge

to

the

district

court’s

In assessing

application

of

the

Guidelines, we review the district court’s factual findings for
clear error and its legal conclusions de novo.

United States v.

Alvarado Perez, 609 F.3d 609, 612 (4th Cir. 2010).
Section 2D1.1(b)(1) of the Guidelines directs a district
court

to

increase

a

defendant’s

offense

level

by

two

levels

“[i]f a dangerous weapon (including a firearm) was possessed.”
The

enhancement

is

proper

when

the

weapon

at

issue

“was

possessed in connection with drug activity that was part of the
same

course

of

conduct

or

common

scheme

as

the

offense

of

conviction,” United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 628-29 (4th
Cir.

2010)

(internal

quotation

marks

omitted),

even

in

the

absence of “proof of precisely concurrent acts, for example, gun
in hand while in the act of storing drugs, drugs in hand while
in the act of retrieving a gun.”
F.3d

850,

omitted).

852

(4th

Cir.

1997)

United States v. Harris, 128
(internal

quotation

marks

“[P]roof of constructive possession of the [firearm]
4

Appeal: 14-4565

is

Doc: 49

Filed: 05/06/2015

sufficient,

and

the

Pg: 5 of 9

Government

is

entitled

to

rely

on

circumstantial evidence to carry its burden.”

Manigan, 592 F.3d

at

to

629.

The

defendant

bears

the

burden

show

that

a

connection between his possession of a firearm and his narcotics
offense is “clearly improbable.”

Harris, 128 F.3d at 852-53.

We have further held that weapons possessed by a member of
a conspiracy are attributable to a co-conspirator when “under
the circumstances of the case, it was fair to say that it was
reasonably foreseeable to defendant that his co-participant was
in possession of a firearm.”

United States v. Kimberlin, 18

F.3d 1156, 1159-60 (4th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks and
alteration omitted) (upholding application of enhancement under
USSG

§

2D1.1(b)

firearm).
dangerous

based

Moreover,
weapon

is

on

co-conspirator’s

a

co-conspirator’s

foreseeable

when

possession
possession

“their

of
of

the
a

collaborative

criminal venture includes an exchange of controlled substances
for a large amount of cash.”

United States v. Gomez-Jiminez,

750 F.3d 370, 381 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 305
(2014).

Given Perez-Ruiz’s admitted conspiracy, his presence

and actions at the stash trailers and their curtilage, and the
large scope of the drug activity, it was fairly inferable that
the presence of the firearm was foreseeable.

See Kimberlin, 18

F.3d at 1160 (internal quotation marks omitted).

5

Appeal: 14-4565

Doc: 49

Filed: 05/06/2015

Pg: 6 of 9

Moreover, Perez-Ruiz has failed to present an argument that
the connection between the firearms and the drug conspiracy was
“clearly improbable,” and, on Anders review, “[t]here is nothing
in the record to suggest that the weapon[] w[as] unconnected to
the offense.”

See Gomez-Jiminez, 750 F.3d at 382.

In addition,

the record affirmatively supports the connection:
participated

in

a

large

scale

drug

conspiracy,

Perez-Ruiz
transporting

hundreds of thousands of dollars on more than one occasion; the
handgun was buried near a stash trailer where Perez-Ruiz was
seen repeatedly and where Perez-Ruiz retrieved items from the
wooded curtilage; and the stash trailers were also the site of
drug sales by Perez-Ruiz.

As such, the court’s factual finding

that the weapon was connected to the drug trafficking conspiracy
was not error.
IV.
Perez-Ruiz next challenges the district court’s application
of

a

three-level

conspiracy.

The

enhancement
district

based

court’s

on

his

imposition

role
of

in
a

the
role

adjustment is a factual determination reviewed for clear error.
United States v. Kellam, 568 F.3d 125, 147-48 (4th Cir. 2009).
A three-level enhancement under USSG § 3B1.1(b) is warranted if
“the defendant was a manager or supervisor (but not an organizer
or

leader)

and

participants.”

the

criminal

To

qualify

activity
for
6

such

involved
an

five

or

enhancement,

more
the

Appeal: 14-4565

Doc: 49

Filed: 05/06/2015

Pg: 7 of 9

defendant must have managed or supervised “one or more other
participants.”

USSG § 3B1.1, cmt. n.2.

The enhancement is

appropriate where the evidence demonstrates that the defendant
“controlled the activities of other participants” or “exercised
management responsibility.”

United States v. Slade, 631 F.3d

185, 190 (4th Cir. 2011) (citing United States v. Bartley, 230
F.3d 667, 673-74 (4th Cir. 2000)).

In determining whether an

enhancement under USSG § 3B1.1(b) is warranted, a court should
consider:
(1) the exercise of decision making authority, (2) the
nature of participation in the commission of the
offense, (3) the recruitment of accomplices, (4) the
claimed right to a larger share of the fruits of the
crime, (5) the degree of participation in planning or
organizing the offense, (6) the nature and scope of
the illegal activity, and (7) the degree of control
and authority exercised over others.
Kellam,

568

F.3d

at

148

(quoting

USSG

§

3B1.1,

cmt.

n.4).

“Leadership over only one other participant is sufficient as
long as there is some control exercised.”

United States v.

Rashwan, 328 F.3d 160, 166 (4th Cir. 2003).
We conclude that the district court did not clearly err by
applying

the

Perez-Ruiz

leadership

exercised

enhancement

control

over

to

Perez-Ruiz’s

his

wife

and

sentence.
another,

directing them to assist him counting and wrapping the money.
In addition, his wife acted as counter-surveillance during money
drops.

Perez-Ruiz also distributed cocaine for redistribution

7

Appeal: 14-4565

Doc: 49

Filed: 05/06/2015

Pg: 8 of 9

and organized the logistics of the money-drops for a conspiracy
that dealt with a great deal of cocaine.

Accordingly, this

claim is without merit.
V.
Perez-Ruiz next contends that the district court erred by
failing to give him a safety valve reduction in sentence.

A

two-level reduction in offense level is applicable under USSG §
5C1.2 if the defendant meets the five criteria set out in 18
U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1)-(5) (2012), the fourth of which is that the
defendant is not a organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of
others

in

the

Perez-Ruiz
conspiracy,

offense.

was

a

the

However,

manager

district

because

as

or

supervisor

court

properly

discussed

in

his

found

above

criminal

him

to

be

ineligible.
VI.
In

accordance

with

Anders,

we

have

reviewed

record for meritorious issues and have found none.
we

affirm

requires

Perez-Ruiz’s
that

counsel

conviction
inform

and

the

Accordingly,

sentence.

Perez-Ruiz,

in

entire

This

writing,

court
of

the

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further
filed,

review.
but

If

counsel

Perez-Ruiz
believes

requests

that

such

that
a

a

petition

petition

would

be
be

frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to
withdraw from representation.

Counsel’s motion must state that
8

Appeal: 14-4565

Doc: 49

Filed: 05/06/2015

Pg: 9 of 9

a copy thereof was served on Perez-Ruiz.

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
expressed in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

9