USA v. Bienvenido Ramirez-Leonardo

Filing 511139748

USA v. Bienvenido Ramirez-Leonardo

Doc. 511139748

Case: 09-40688

Document: 00511139748

Page: 1

Date Filed: 06/11/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-40688 S u m m a ry Calendar June 11, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

U N IT E D STATES OF AMERICA, P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v e rsu s B IE N V E N ID O RAMIREZ-LEONARDO, D e fe n d a n t-A p p e lla n t.

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Southern District of Texas N o . 7:08-CR-1310-1

B e fo re DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:*

B ie n v e n id o Ramirez-Leonardo appeals the sentence imposed following his plea of g u ilty of importation of heroin. He argues that the factual basis for his plea did not establish th a t he knowingly imported a particular quantity of a particular drug into the United States, s o his plea should be vacated. He correctly concedes, however, that that argument is

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-40688

Document: 00511139748

Page: 2

Date Filed: 06/11/2010

No. 09-40688 fo re c lo s e d by United States v. Betancourt, 586 F.3d 303 (5th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, __S. C t._ _ , 2010 WL 562914 (U.S. Mar. 22, 2010) (No. 09-9048); he raises the argument solely to preserve its further review by the Supreme Court. Ramirez-Leonardo additionally contends that the district court clearly erred in denying h im a minor-role adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). Ramirez-Leonardo's reliance o n his alleged courier status, alone, is unavailing. See United States v. Martinez-Larraga, 5 1 7 F.3d 258, 272 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Jenkins, 487 F.3d 279, 282 (5th Cir. 2 0 0 7 ). The unrebutted facts established that Ramirez-Leonardo imported a large amount of h e ro in into the United States from the Dominican Republic; traveled a long distance with the h e ro in in hidden compartments in the soles of multiple pairs of his shoes; was to be paid a la rg e sum of money for his role in the criminal activity; and was solely responsible for tra n s p o rtin g the heroin to its final destination of New York. Based on the foregoing, it c a n n o t be said that Ramirez-Leonardo was "peripheral to the advancement of the criminal a c tiv ity " and thus a minor participant. See Martinez-Larraga, 517 F.3d at 272. AFFIRMED.