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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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