US v. Geoffrey Ramer
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:14-cr-00022-MOC-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000016661].. [16-4186]
Appeal: 16-4186
Doc: 34
Filed: 02/03/2017
Pg: 1 of 6
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4186
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
GEOFFREY ALEXANDER RAMER, a/k/a Geoffrey Alexander RamerMesen,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:14-cr-00022-MOC-1)
Submitted:
November 30, 2016
Before GREGORY,
Judges.
Chief
Judge,
Decided:
and
KING
and
February 3, 2017
KEENAN,
Circuit
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
C. Fredric Marcinak, III, SMITH MOORE LEATHERWOOD, LLP,
Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Jill Westmoreland
Rose, United States Attorney, Amy E. Ray, Assistant United
States Attorney, Leslie R. Caldwell, Assistant Attorney General,
Sung-Hee Suh, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Jeremy R.
Sanders, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 16-4186
Doc: 34
Filed: 02/03/2017
Pg: 2 of 6
PER CURIAM:
Based on his role in an international telemarketing scam,
Geoffrey Alexander Ramer pled guilty to conspiracy to commit
wire fraud, eight counts of wire fraud and aiding and abetting,
conspiracy
to
commit
money
laundering,
and
four
counts
international money laundering and aiding and abetting.
of
The
district court sentenced Ramer to 108 months’ imprisonment, and
he now appeals, challenging the district court’s calculation of
his
Sentencing
Guidelines
range
reasonableness of his sentence.
and
the
procedural
We affirm.
Ramer first argues that the Government failed to present
evidence
at
his
sentencing
hearing
regarding
his
leadership
role, the number and vulnerability of victims, and the amount of
loss attributable to him.
However, we conclude that Ramer has
waived appellate review of these claims.
We have recognized
that “[a] party who identifies an issue, and then explicitly
withdraws it, has waived the issue.”
United States v. Robinson,
744
(internal
F.3d
omitted).
293,
298
(4th
Cir.
2014)
quotation
marks
“[W]hen a claim is waived, it is not reviewable on
appeal, even for plain error.”
Id.; see also United States v.
Williams,
(4th
sentencing
29
F.3d
172,
stipulation
174-75
on
issue
issue).
2
Cir.
waives
1994)
right
(holding
to
appeal
that
that
Appeal: 16-4186
Doc: 34
Ramer
Filed: 02/03/2017
raised
these
Pg: 3 of 6
Guidelines
calculation
issues
in
his
objections to the presentence report, and he later agreed to a
sentencing
stipulation
objections.
Indeed,
that
specifically
defense
counsel
resolved
agreed
at
his
Ramer’s
sentencing hearing that the sentencing stipulation resolved all
of Ramer’s objections to the presentence report and even relied
on the stipulation to argue for a lesser sentence.
disingenuous
for
required
introduce
to
Ramer
to
now
claim
evidence
at
that
the
the
We find it
Government
sentencing
hearing
was
on
these issues.
Moreover, contrary to Ramer’s argument, the Supreme Court’s
decision in Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338
(2016), does not require us to review his waived arguments.
In
Molina-Martinez, the Supreme Court observed that “a court of
appeals has discretion to remedy a forfeited error,” or an error
that
“has
not
Id. at 1343.
Ramer
been
intentionally
relinquished
abandoned.”
Here, by agreeing to the sentencing stipulation,
“intentionally
relinquished”
his
ability
Guidelines calculation issues that he now argues.
Next,
or
Ramer
contends
that
unreasonable for two reasons.
his
sentence
to
appeal
the
Id.
is
procedurally
First, Ramer asserts that the
district court failed to consider any of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2012) factors other than deterrence.
3
Second, Ramer argues that
Appeal: 16-4186
the
Doc: 34
district
Filed: 02/03/2017
court
neglected
Pg: 4 of 6
to
address
his
arguments
for
a
downward variance.
A sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district court
properly calculates the defendant’s advisory Guidelines range,
gives the parties an opportunity to argue for an appropriate
sentence,
considers
the
§
3553(a)
explains the selected sentence.
38,
49-51
(2007).
As
we
factors,
and
sufficiently
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
have
explained,
“[r]egardless
of
whether the district court imposes an above, below, or withinGuidelines
sentence,
it
must
place
on
the
record
an
individualized assessment based on the particular facts of the
case before it.”
United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330
(4th
(internal
Cir.
explanation
2009)
must
be
quotation
sufficient
to
marks
omitted).
allow
for
The
“meaningful
appellate review,” such that we need “not guess at the district
court’s rationale.”
omitted).
Id. at 329, 330 (internal quotation marks
Furthermore,
“[w]here
the
defendant
or
prosecutor
presents nonfrivolous reasons for imposing a different sentence
than that set forth in the advisory Guidelines, a district judge
should
address
the
party’s
rejected those arguments.”
arguments
and
explain
why
he
has
Id. at 328 (internal quotation marks
omitted).
Insofar as Ramer contends that the district court failed to
properly consider the § 3553(a) factors by only addressing the
4
Appeal: 16-4186
Doc: 34
Filed: 02/03/2017
Pg: 5 of 6
need for deterrence, we find that Ramer’s argument is meritless.
Although the district court’s statements in imposing sentence
were
heavily
focused
on
general
deterrence,
the
court
also
discussed Ramer’s personal characteristics, the seriousness of
the offense, and the need to protect the public from Ramer.
United
States
(recognizing
v.
Pauley,
that
511
district
F.3d
468,
476
court
may
(4th
Cir.
“reasonably
Cf.
2007)
accord
significant weight to a single sentencing factor in fashioning
its sentence”).
The district court clearly recognized that it
must consider the § 3553(a) factors and did so.
The district
court was not required to “robotically tick through § 3553(a)’s
every subsection.”
(4th Cir. 2006).
did
not
commit
United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345
Therefore, we conclude that the district court
procedural
error
in
its
consideration
of
the
§ 3553(a) factors.
Turning
argument,
to
Ramer
Ramer’s
does
not
second
procedural
specifically
unreasonableness
identify
the
downward
variance arguments that the district court failed to address,
but
defense
counsel
requested
a
variance
based
on
Ramer’s
personal history and characteristics, including his intelligence
and education, and the tragedy of his mother’s murder.
Defense
counsel also argued in mitigation that Ramer intermittently left
Costa
Rica
while
the
scheme
was
5
ongoing,
that
he
did
not
Appeal: 16-4186
Doc: 34
substantially
Filed: 02/03/2017
profit
from
Pg: 6 of 6
the
scheme,
and
that
he
did
not
particularly target elderly persons.
After some discussion with defense counsel, the district
court
stated
that
Guidelines range.
it
would
not
go
below
the
stipulated
While the district court did not discuss each
of Ramer’s arguments for a downward variance in rejecting his
request, the court’s remarks reflect that it considered Ramer’s
personal characteristics and his offense conduct in fashioning
his sentence.
sufficiently
variance.
Therefore, we conclude that the district court
addressed
Moreover,
Ramer’s
even
arguments
assuming
that
for
the
a
downward
district
court
erred, we find that the Government has demonstrated any error to
be harmless.
United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 838 (4th
Cir. 2010) (providing harmless error standard).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
dispense
with
contentions
are
oral
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
the
facts
We
and
legal
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
6
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?