Filed: Nov. 27, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 05-4127 _ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Sigifredo Ramirez, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. * _ Submitted: November 15, 2006 Filed: November 27, 2006 _ Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Sigifredo Ramirez appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess w
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 05-4127 _ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Sigifredo Ramirez, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. * _ Submitted: November 15, 2006 Filed: November 27, 2006 _ Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Sigifredo Ramirez appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess wi..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 05-4127
___________
United States of America, *
*
Appellee, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* District of Nebraska.
Sigifredo Ramirez, *
* [UNPUBLISHED]
Appellant. *
___________
Submitted: November 15, 2006
Filed: November 27, 2006
___________
Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Sigifredo Ramirez appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he
pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Ramirez argues the sentence is
unreasonable, contending that the court--after granting a safety-valve reduction-- gave
“no clear reason” for sentencing him at the midpoint rather than the bottom of the
Guidelines imprisonment range.
1
The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District
of Nebraska.
The record reflects that the district court considered appropriate sentencing
factors, and we conclude the sentence is not unreasonable. See United States v. Long
Soldier,
431 F.3d 1120, 1123 (8th Cir. 2005); United States v. Tobacco,
428 F.3d
1148, 1151 (8th Cir. 2005); United States v. Lincoln,
413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir.),
cert. denied,
126 S. Ct. 840 (2005).
Accordingly, we affirm.
______________________________
-2-