United States v. Manuel Ramos-Fuentes, No. 18-50030 (5th Cir. Feb. 14, 2019). · Go Syfert
United States v. Manuel Ramos-Fuentes, No. 18-50030 (5th Cir. Feb. 14, 2019). Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Manuel Ramos-Fuentes
18-50030.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Feb 14, 2019.
Unpublished opinion
Unpublished  |  Direct Criminal
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
No. 18-50030 February 14, 2019
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MANUEL RAMOS-FUENTES, also known as Manuel Perez-Calderon, also known as Manuel Fuentes Ramos, also known as Manuel Fuentes, also known as Manuel Ramos, also known as Manuel Fuentes-Ramos,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:17-CR-583-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: [*]

Manuel Ramos-Fuentes pleaded guilty to illegal reentry into the United States and was sentenced to 28 months in prison. On appeal, Ramos-Fuentes argues that two prior sentences were imposed on the same day and should have been combined, under U.S.S.G § 4A1.2(a)(2)(B), which would have reduced his recommended sentencing range. Ramos-Fuentes concedes that he did not object to the district court’s calculation of his criminal history score and that review is for plain error only. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009); Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897 (2018).

In response to Ramos-Fuentes’s brief, the Government filed an unopposed motion to supplement the record with the supporting documents for the two offenses in question. The additional documents show that the sentences were not imposed on the same day and may not be counted as a single sentence under § 4A1.2(a)(2). Ramos-Fuentes has failed to show any error in his sentence.

AFFIRMED.


* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.