USA v. Walter Ramo

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [10-50334 Affirmed ] Judge: JLW , Judge: ECP , Judge: PRO Mandate pull date is 12/15/2010 for Appellant Walter Randale Ramos [10-50334]

USA v. Walter Ramo ase: 10-50334 C

Document: 00511303831 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/24/2010

Doc. 0

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 10-50334 S u m m a r y Calendar November 24, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

U N IT E D STATES OF AMERICA, P la in t if f ­ A p p e lle e , v. W A L T E R RANDALE RAMOS, 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 Western District of Texas U S D C No. 6:06-CR-124-1

B e fo r e WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* W a lt e r Randale Ramos appeals the 240-month sentence imposed in c o n n e c t io n with his guilty-plea conviction for possession with the intent to d is t r ib u t e at least 50 grams of methamphetamine. Ramos argues that the d is t r ic t court erred by denying a reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U .S . Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G.) § 3E1.1. He contends that his explanation r e g a r d in g the presence of drugs found in his vehicle was not essential to the c o n d u c t of the offense. Ramos asserts that he is entitled to a reduction for
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 10-50334 Document: 00511303831 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/24/2010 No. 10-50334 a c c e p t a n c e of responsibility because he pleaded guilty and did not contest the fa c t u a l basis. A defendant may receive a two-level reduction in offense level pursuant t o U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 if he "clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for h is offense." U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL § 3E1.1(a). The defendant b e a r s the burden of demonstrating that the reduction is warranted. United S ta te s v. Watson, 988 F.2d 544, 551 (5th Cir. 1993). "While the district court's fin d in g s under the sentencing guidelines are generally reviewed for clear error, a determination whether a defendant is entitled to an adjustment for acceptance o f responsibility is reviewed with even greater deference." United States v. B u c h a n a n , 485 F.3d 274, 287 (5th Cir. 2007). "We will affirm a sentencing c o u r t's decision not to award a reduction" pursuant to § 3E1.1 unless the decision is "without foundation." United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 211 (5th C ir . 2008) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). T h e district court did not err in denying credit for acceptance of r e s p o n s ib ility . The court did not find credible Ramos's explanation of his

p o s s e s s io n of the methamphetamine. Ramos's claim that he believed he was in p o s s e s s io n of a pair of shoes when he stole a fruit snacks box containing m e t h a m p h e t a m in e was an attempt to minimize his conduct by denying his k n o w le d g e of the methamphetamine. See Watson, 988 F.2d at 551. Contrary to R a m o s 's argument on appeal, guilty knowledge is an essential element of the o ffe n s e . See United States v. Solis, 299 F.3d 420, 446 (5th Cir. 2002). Given the d e fe r e n c e owed to a district court's findings on acceptance of responsibility, R a m o s has not shown that the denial of the reduction was without foundation. See Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d at 211. A c c o r d in g ly , the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2