United States v. Ramirez

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-40315
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOE MONTEZ RAMIREZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(B-01-CR-385-1)
_________________________________________________________________
December 31, 2002
Before BARKSDALE, DEMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Joe Montez Ramirez, convicted of failure to surrender for
sentencing (convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to
distribute), appeals his sentence-adjustment, based on obstruction
of justice, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. He contends no evidence
supported the determination that he acted with the mental state
required for the adjustment.
In April 2001, Ramirez failed to surrender for service of
sentence. For over two months, he failed to appear. During that

-- 1 of 2 --

time, members of his family reported him drowned. Ramirez was
ultimately arrested on unrelated charges and pleaded guilty to
knowingly failing to surrender for service of sentence. (Ramirez
acknowledged at re-arraignment in November 2001 that, following his
failure to surrender, he evaded efforts to find him. At sentencing
in February 2002, although the district court may have had that
admission before it, it did not note it in imposing the adjustment.
Accordingly, we do not consider it.)
The district court found that Ramirez knowingly obstructed the
investigation of the failure to appear charge by either planning
the fictitious drowning or simply failing to clarify that he was
not drowned in the two months following the failure to appear. See
U.S.S.G. §2J1.6, comment. n.2. The district court did not clearly
err in this factual finding, and, therefore, did not err in
imposing the adjustment. United States v. Lister, 53 F.3d 66, 71
(5th Cir. 1995).
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --