USA v. Rosali Ramos-Sorto
Filing
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [14-40062 Affirmed ] Judge: FPB , Judge: LHS , Judge: GJC Mandate pull date is 08/03/2015 for Appellant Rosali Mauricio Ramos-Sorto [14-40062]
Case: 14-40062
Document: 00513112883
Page: 1
Date Filed: 07/13/2015
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-40062
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
July 13, 2015
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
ROSALI MAURICIO RAMOS-SORTO, also known as Sorto Ramos-Mauricio,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:13-CR-1569-1
Before BENAVIDES, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Rosali Mauricio Ramos-Sorto appealed the 46-month sentence imposed
following his guilty plea conviction for being found in the United States after
previous deportation. For the first time on appeal, he contends that the district
court plainly erred in imposing a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G.
§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) based on his 2001 District of Columbia conviction for
distribution of a controlled substance in a drug-free zone because the statute
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 14-40062
Document: 00513112883
Page: 2
Date Filed: 07/13/2015
No. 14-40062
of conviction, District of Columbia Code §§ 33-541(a)(1), 33-547.1 (1999), does
not require proof of commercial activity.
This argument is foreclosed by our recent holdings in United States v.
Martinez-Lugo, 782 F.3d 198, 204-05 (5th Cir. 2015), and United States v.
Rodriguez-Bernal, 783 F.3d 1002, 1003, 1008 (5th Cir. 2015). Accordingly,
Ramos-Sorto has shown no clear or obvious error with regard to his sentence.
See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).
AFFIRMED.
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?