USA v. Pedro Ramo

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED.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]

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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