United States of America v. Susan Chavez-Ramirez

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SUSAN CHAVEZ-RAMIREZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-10055
D.C. No. 1:09-cr-00050-SOM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Susan Oki Mollway, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 9, 2011**
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Susan Chavez-Ramirez appeals from the 158-month sentence imposed
following her guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute and possess with
intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a substance containing methamphetamine,
FILED
OCT 16 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-10055 2
in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846; and possession with
intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a substance containing methamphetamine,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Chavez-Ramirez contends that in granting a downward departure under 18
U.S.C. § 3553(e), the district court could have considered factors unrelated to her
substantial assistance. This contention is foreclosed by United States v. Jackson,
577 F.3d 1032, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009). Contrary to Chavez-Ramirez’s argument,
Pepper v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 1229 (2011), does not permit us to disregard
our precedent. See United States v. Gonzalez-Zotelo, 556 F.3d 736, 740 (9th Cir.
2009).
Chavez-Ramirez also contends that the district court erred when it used the
Guidelines range as the starting point for the departure. Even if the district court
so erred, Chavez-Ramirez has not established a reasonable probability that she
would have received a different sentence had the district court instead used the
mandatory minimum sentence as the starting point. See United States v. Dallman,
533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --