UNITED STATES v. RAMIREZ (2018)

Jose Ramirez pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance and was sentenced within the Guidelines to 180 months of imprisonment, to be followed by 3 years of supervised release. On appeal, he contends that the district court violated his constitutional rights under the Confrontation Clause and Due Process Clause when, in imposing his sentence, the court relied on information from the presentence report about his other criminal activity.

Even so, Ramirez moves for summary disposition of his appeal because he concedes that the issue is foreclosed by this court’s decisions in United States v. Beydoun, 469 F.3d 102, 108 (5th Cir. 2006), and United States v. Navarro, 169 F.3d 228, 236 (5th Cir. 1999). He states that he seeks to preserve the issue for further review. As Ramirez observes, his rights under the Confrontation Clause do not extend to sentencing proceedings. See Beydoun, 469 F.3d at 108. Moreover, we have previously rejected that the denial of the right to confront witnesses at a sentencing hearing was a due process violation. See United States v. Salas, 182 Fed.Appx. 282, 284 & n.7 (5th Cir. 2006).

Because Ramirez’s arguments are indeed foreclosed, his motion for summary disposition is GRANTED. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

PER CURIAM: * FN* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.