USA v. Pedro Ramo


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [10-30793 Dismissed as Frivolous ] Judge: EHJ , Judge: EGJ , Judge: JES Mandate pull date is 05/08/2012 for Appellant Pedro Mendez Ramos; granting motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Stephen H. Shapiro [6917701-2], granting motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Stephen H. Shapiro [6782617-2] [10-30793]

Download PDF
Case: 10-30793 Document: 00511823770 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/17/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 10-30793 Conference Calendar April 17, 2012 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. PEDRO MENDEZ RAMOS, also known as Peter, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:05-CR-20084-1 Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The attorney appointed to represent Pedro Mendez Ramos has filed a motion to withdraw, a supplemental motion to withdraw, and two briefs in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Ramos has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s briefs and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Case: 10-30793 Document: 00511823770 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/17/2012 No. 10-30793 Our review did reveal an error that requires correction of the final judgment of conviction and sentence. Ramos was notified via indictment that his property was subject to forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. § 853. He signed a consent decree of forfeiture, and the district court entered a preliminary order of forfeiture in his case. The district court verified at sentencing that Ramos had agreed to forfeit his property. However, it did not comply with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(4)(B)’s requirement that it include the order of forfeiture in the final judgment. The court’s failure to include the order of forfeiture in the final judgment “may be corrected at any time under [Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure] 36.” FED. R. CRIM. P. 32.2(b)(4)(B). Accordingly, counsel’s motions for leave to withdraw are GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The case is REMANDED for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to correct the judgment of conviction and sentence to include the order of forfeiture. 2

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?