U.S. v. Ramirez

Decision Date14 February 2011
Docket NumberNo. 09–6544.,09–6544.
Citation635 F.3d 249
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee,v.Shanna RAMIREZ, Defendant–Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

ON BRIEF: Mary Ellen Coleman, Federal Defender Services of Eastern Tennessee, Inc., Chattanooga, Tennessee, for Appellant. Gary S. Humble, Assistant United States Attorney, Chattanooga, Tennessee, Zachary C. Bolitho, Assistant United States Attorney, Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellee.Before: MARTIN and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges; LUDINGTON, District Judge.*

OPINION

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON, District Judge.

Appellant Shanna Ramirez (Ramirez) was indicted on charges of conspiracy to commit social security fraud; possess a false government identification; and/or harbor illegal aliens in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 (2006), 1028(a)(6) (2006 & Supp.2010), 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B) (2006 & Supp.2010), and 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) (2006) (count one); social security fraud in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2006) (count two); possession of a false government document in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(6) (count three); and perjury before the grand jury in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623(a) (2006 & Supp.2010) (counts four and five) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Ramirez was acquitted on the possession of a false document charge and convicted of the four remaining charges. Ramirez filed a motion for judgment of acquittal, which was denied by the Honorable Curtis L. Collier. Ramirez was sentenced to fifteen months of imprisonment. Ramirez asserts the district court erred in denying her motion for judgment of acquittal because the government did not present sufficient evidence to substantially corroborate her statements. Because Ramirez's statements were adequately corroborated by independent evidence, we AFFIRM.

I.

This case began when an investigation revealed that Durrett Cheese Sales, Inc. (“Durrett Cheese”), a cheese cutting and wrapping company located in Manchester, Tennessee, hired illegal aliens. Ramirez worked as a quality control manager at Durrett Cheese. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) Agent Jeremy Ridenour (“Agent Ridenour”) sought to speak with Ramirez about Durrett Cheese's hiring practices. Jill Adkins, a National Labor Relations Board investigator who was looking into an unrelated work stoppage that occurred at Durrett Cheese also wanted to speak with Ramirez. Agent Ridenour and Ms. Adkins agreed to coordinate their investigations. Ms. Adkins called Ramirez to arrange a meeting at a local restaurant to discuss the work stoppage. Ms. Adkins did not inform Ramirez of Agent Ridenour's investigation for fear that Ramirez would not agree to meet with her. Ramirez arrived at the restaurant and discussed the work stoppage while Agent Ridenour waited nearby. Ramirez signed an affidavit providing, among other things, that she was authorized by Durrett Cheese to hire employees, but not to terminate their employment. After Ms. Adkins completed her discussion with Ramirez, Agent Ridenour approached the table and Ms. Adkins introduced him as an ICE agent.

Agent Ridenour spoke with Ramirez while Ms. Adkins listened and took notes, which she later memorialized in a type-written summary. During the conversation, Ramirez told Agent Ridenour that Durrett Cheese was knowingly hiring illegal aliens. She also acknowledged that many of the employees had submitted false employment-related documents to Durrett Cheese. Ramirez also stated that she helped her former live-in boyfriend, Roberto Flores (“Flores”), get a job at Durrett Cheese using false documents. Flores was later discovered to be an illegal alien.

Ramirez then testified before a grand jury that was investigating Durrett Cheese's employment of illegal aliens. Ramirez was advised of her rights and swore to tell the truth. She informed the grand jury that she had been employed as the quality assurance manager at Durrett Cheese for four years. Because she spoke Spanish and most of the Durrett Cheese prospective hires were non-English-speaking Hispanics, Ramirez translated and completed I–9 Employment Eligibility Verification forms (“I–9 forms”) and other employment-related documents for the new employees. In doing so, Ramirez was required to obtain two types of identification from each new employee.

Ramirez testified before a grand jury that she did not know whether Flores had submitted false documents to Durrett Cheese and that she had no reason to believe that any of Durrett Cheese's employees were illegal aliens. The testimony contradicted her earlier statements to Agent Ridenour and Ms. Adkins. Following Ramirez's testimony, the grand jury returned the five-count indictment. The case proceeded to trial.

At Ramirez's trial, the government called Ms. Adkins as its first witness. She testified about the meeting she and Agent Ridenour had with Ramirez, reading from the detailed summary she prepared after that meeting. Ms. Adkins testified that Ramirez stated she was married, and that her husband had returned to Mexico because he had been in the United States illegally. She further explained that Ramirez answered “no” when Agent Ridenour asked if Durrett Cheese knew it was hiring illegal aliens the first two times, but then answered that Durrett Cheese knew it was hiring illegal aliens who were submitting false documents when asked a third time.

Ms. Adkins also testified that Ramirez stated Flores had previously worked at Durrett Cheese for cash, and that her superior, Brittany Durrett, asked if he wanted to return because the company was shorthanded after many of its employees were arrested on immigration charges. Ramirez stated that Brittany Durrett was initially unwilling to accept Flores' documents because they reflected a different last name than he had used during his prior employment with Durrett Cheese. Ramirez then assisted her boyfriend with completing new documents, and acknowledged knowing that the documents she completed and submitted to Durrett Cheese on Flores' behalf were false.

The government also called David Britain (“Britain”), the grand jury foreman during the Durrett Cheese investigation, as a witness. During the examination, the Assistant United States Attorney read the questions asked of Ramirez during the grand jury session, while Britain read Ramirez's answers. According to the grand jury transcript, Ramirez admitted to completing I–9 forms for Durrett Cheese's new employees. Ramirez also told the grand jury that she did not assist Flores in obtaining a job at Durrett Cheese nor did she know that he had submitted false employment documents, contrary to her earlier statements to the investigators. She also denied knowing that Durrett Cheese hired illegal aliens or that Flores was an illegal alien.

The government introduced eight exhibits (the “Immigration Documents”) during Ramirez's trial, which consisted of: copies of the I–9 forms, social security cards, permanent resident cards, W–4 forms, and other employment related documents for seven Durrett Cheese employees. The employees were Mercedez Gomez, Dalila Contreras, Ma Remedios Cano, Teresa Rosales, Sarai Contreras, Amaro Cirilo, and Roberto Flores. Each of the admitted I–9 forms had Ramirez's signature under the following statement: “I attest, under penalty of perjury, that I have assisted in the completion of this form and that to the best of my knowledge the information is true and correct.” App'x Vol. II at 45. The government also introduced a stipulation with Ramirez. The stipulation provided that the Immigration Documents were fraudulent, and that the employees who submitted the documents were illegal aliens. The United States rested its case, and Ramirez moved for judgment of acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29(a).

Ramirez argued that the government did not offer independent evidence that she knowingly engaged in the conduct charged in the indictment, and that the government's case consisted only of Ramirez's uncorroborated statements. The government responded that Ramirez previously admitted to knowingly engaging in the conduct charged in the indictment, and that Ramirez's admissions about helping illegal aliens gain employment at Durrett Cheese were independently corroborated by the Immigration Documents and the stipulation. The court took Ramirez's motion under advisement and Ramirez proceeded to present her case.

Ramirez's first witness was Donna Fullen, a previous employee of Durrett Cheese, who testified that one of Ramirez's responsibilities was to review employment applications and make contact with potential new employees because most of Durrett Cheese's prospective employees were Spanish-speaking. Ms. Fullen also testified that Ron Girts, the plant manager, and Brittany Durrett, the owner's daughter, made the final hiring decisions. Ms. Fullen did not have any knowledge of events that occurred since she left the company in 2004.

Ramirez next called Ron Girts, who confirmed that Ramirez was involved in the hiring process because she spoke Spanish, and Durrett Cheese mainly employed people who could not speak English. Ramirez's responsibilities included verifying that the applications were properly completed, and she would make copies of the necessary papers. Mr. Girts also testified that Ramirez conducted interviews of the applicants and would make hiring recommendations to Brittany Durrett. Mr. Girts sometimes signed the I–9 forms under the employer section but relied on others to properly complete the documents and collect the required information from new employees.

Ramirez also testified in her own defense. Ramirez explained her employment responsibilities at Durrett Cheese, among other things. Ramirez testified that although she is Native American, she learned Spanish because her mother married a Hispanic man when Ramirez was young. Ramirez's husband also spoke Spanish. Ramirez's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
64 cases
  • Woogerd v. Wainright
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • September 17, 2018
    ... ... United States v ... Ramirez , 635 F.3d 249 (6 th Cir. 2011); United States v ... Kelley , 461 F.3d 817, 825 (6 th Cir. 2006); United States v ... Reed , 167 F.3d 984, 992 (6 ... ...
  • Hunter v. Hamilton County Bd. of Elections
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • March 29, 2011
    ... ... Before us are the following consolidated appeals: (1) intervenor-appellant Williams's appeal of the district court's November 22, 2010 order granting a ... ...
  • Quintero v. Carpenter
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee
    • December 12, 2014
    ... ... Because federal law does not impose the heightened circumstantial evidence standard on which Petitioner relies, United States v. Ramirez , 635 F.3d 249, 255-56 (6th Cir. 2011) ("circumstantial evidence alone can sustain a guilty verdict and ... need not remove every reasonable ... E.g., Hunton v. Sinclair , 732 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2013) ("If Coleman's revetment is to be torn down, it is not for us to do it. Rather, we must follow the case which directly controls, leaving to the Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions"). Finally, ... ...
  • Broussard-Wadkins v. Maples
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama
    • September 28, 2012
    ... ... See United States v. Ramirez, 635 F.3d 249 (6th Cir.2011). In that case, the Sixth Circuit affirmed Shanna Ramirez's conviction for conspiracy, fraud, and perjury. Id. at ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • PERJURY
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 58-3, July 2021
    • July 1, 2021
    ...to show that the defendant knew the statement at issue was false), aff’d, 887 F.3d 116 (4th Cir. 2018). 59. See United States v. Ramirez, 635 F.3d 249, 259 (6th Cir. 2011) (f‌inding defendant’s “intimate relationship” with her boyfriend could lead a reasonable jury to infer defendant knew o......
  • Perjury
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 60-3, July 2023
    • July 1, 2023
    ...Frost, 125 F.3d 346, 386–87 (6th Cir. 1997); United States v. Vest, 842 F.2d 1319, 1331 (1st Cir. 1988). 61. See United States v. Ramirez, 635 F.3d 249, 259 (6th Cir. 2011) (f‌inding defendant’s “intimate relationship” with her boyfriend could allow a reasonable jury to infer defendant knew......
  • Perjury
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 59-3, July 2022
    • July 1, 2022
    ...to show that the defendant knew the statement at issue was false), aff’d , 887 F.3d 116 (4th Cir. 2018). 61. See United States v. Ramirez, 635 F.3d 249, 259 (6th Cir. 2011) (f‌inding defendant’s “intimate relationship” with her boyfriend could lead a reasonable jury to infer defendant knew ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT