US v. Alfredo Ramirez

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:14-cr-00559-JMC-3 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999945464].. [16-4090]

Appeal: 16-4090

Doc: 28

Filed: 10/12/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4090

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALFREDO DE JUSUS RAMIREZ, a/k/a Alfredo Dejesus Ramirez,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg.
J. Michelle Childs, District
Judge. (5:14-cr-00559-JMC-3)

Submitted:

September 29, 2016

Decided:

October 12, 2016

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeremy A. Thompson, LAW
Columbia, South Carolina,
United States Attorney,
States Attorney, Columbia,

OFFICE OF JEREMY A. THOMPSON, LLC,
for Appellant.
Beth Drake, Acting
James Hunter May, Assistant United
South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4090

Doc: 28

Filed: 10/12/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
In October 2014, a federal grand jury charged Alfredo de
Jusus Ramirez and three codefendants with, in relevant part,
conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute
500

grams

or

more

of

a

mixture

or

substance

containing

methamphetamine and 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846 (2012).
Following a 2-day trial at which 13 witnesses testified, the
jury found Ramirez guilty of this offense.

The district court

subsequently sentenced Ramirez to 292 months’ imprisonment, and
Ramirez timely appealed.
The lone issue raised on appeal is Ramirez’s challenge to
the

district

court’s

order

denying

his

pretrial

motion

to

suppress evidence from a traffic stop that occurred in Tennessee
in February of 2013.

We conclude that, even assuming that the

motion to suppress should have been granted, the admission of
the challenged evidence was harmless given the strength of the
Government’s

case

against

Ramirez.

We

therefore

affirm

the

criminal judgment.
In February 2013 — 18 months before the events underlying
this trial — Scott Baker, a Deputy Sheriff from the Rutherford
County (Tennessee) Sheriff’s Department, engaged Ramirez in a
traffic stop after observing Ramirez following a tractor trailer
too

closely.

Ramirez

sought

to
2

suppress

Baker’s

testimony

Appeal: 16-4090

Doc: 28

regarding

Filed: 10/12/2016

this

stop,

the

Pg: 3 of 4

$20,000

in

U.S.

currency

and

small

quantity of methamphetamine seized by Baker following his roadside

search

of

Ramirez’s

truck,

and

authorities following this seizure.
Ramirez

sought

to

suppress

Ramirez’s

statement

to

As relevant to our inquiry,

this

evidence

on

various

Fourth

Amendment grounds.
Baker testified at length regarding the stop at the hearing
on the motion to suppress, at which the court also watched the
video

recording

of

the

traffic

stop.

The

court

ultimately

denied the motion to suppress and further ruled that Baker’s
testimony was admissible.
On

appeal,

testimony
traffic

Ramirez

should
stop

have

violated

restates

been
the

his

contention

suppressed
Fourth

because

Amendment.

that

the

Baker’s

underlying

Specifically,

relying on United States v. Digiovanni, 650 F.3d 498 (4th Cir.
2011), Ramirez complains that the detention lasted longer than
necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop.
When reviewing a district court’s denial of a motion to
suppress, “we review factual findings for clear error and legal
determinations
light

most

de

novo,”

favorable

to

while
the

viewing

“the

Government.”

Green, 599 F.3d 360, 375 (4th Cir. 2010).

evidence
United

in

States

the
v.

The district court’s

refusal to suppress evidence is also subject to harmless error
review.

See United States v. Blauvelt, 638 F.3d 281, 290-91
3

Appeal: 16-4090

Doc: 28

Filed: 10/12/2016

Pg: 4 of 4

(4th Cir. 2011); United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 231
(4th Cir. 2008).
As such, we need not resolve Ramirez’s arguments regarding
the propriety of the district court’s ruling on the motion to
suppress because, even if we assume that the district court’s
ruling

is

erroneous

error is harmless.

under

Digiovanni,

we

conclude

that

this

Our review of the record persuades us that

Baker’s testimony as to the evidence flowing from the February
2013 stop was secondary to the other direct and circumstantial
evidence that the Government presented to establish Ramirez’s
guilt of the underlying charge.

Because the record convinces us

that any “rational fact finder would have found [Ramirez] guilty
absent the error[,]” United States v. Poole, 640 F.3d 114, 120
(4th Cir. 2011) (citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24
(1967)), we reject Ramirez’s assignment of error.
affirm the criminal judgment.

We therefore

We dispense with oral argument

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

4