USA v. Sotero Ramirez-Ballejo


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [14-40450 Affirmed ] Judge: TMR , Judge: JLD , Judge: LHS Mandate pull date is 07/28/2015 for Appellant Sotero Ramirez-Ballejo [14-40450]

Download PDF
Case: 14-40450 Document: 00513106094 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/07/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 14-40450 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED July 7, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. SOTERO RAMIREZ-BALLEJO, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:13-CR-934 Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Sotero Ramirez-Ballejo appeals the 42-month prison term imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry. For the first time on appeal, he contends that the district court committed reversible plain error by imposing the 16-level enhancement of U.S.S.G. ยง 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i), based on his prior Texas conviction for possessing methamphetamine with intent to deliver, when the Texas statute of conviction could encompass administering a 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 14-40450 Document: 00513106094 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/07/2015 No. 14-40450 controlled substance and giving away a controlled substance for no remuneration. These arguments are foreclosed by our recent holdings in United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 782 F.3d 198, 204-05 (5th Cir. 2015), and United States v. Teran-Salas, 767 F.3d 453, 458-62 (5th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1892 (2015). Accordingly, Ramirez-Ballejo 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?