United States v. Ramos, 101912 FED7, 11-1553

Docket Nº:11-1553
Party Name:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LUIS M. RAMOS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judge Panel:Before JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge, KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge, DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge
Case Date:October 19, 2012
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

LUIS M. RAMOS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-1553

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

October 19, 2012

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

Submitted October 18, 2012

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. No. 10-Cr-103 Rudolph T. Randa, Judge.

Before JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge, KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge, DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

ORDER

Luis Ramos and codefendant Ramon Trinidad, each armed with a handgun, robbed Guaranty Bank in Greenfield, Wisconsin. During the robbery Ramos held a gun to the bank manager's head while demanding money. Later that day the two men robbed Bank Mutual in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where Ramos pointed a gun at a teller while demanding money. Ramos pleaded guilty to two counts of armed bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d), and one count of brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, id. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). The district judge sentenced him within the guidelines imprisonment range to concurrent terms of 135 months for the armed robberies and a consecutive 84- month term on the 924(c) count.

Ramos filed a notice of appeal, but his appointed lawyer asserts that the appeal is frivolous and moves to withdraw under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Ramos has responded to counsel's submission, see Cir. R. 51(b), and we limit our review to counsel's facially adequate brief and Ramos's response, see United States v. Schuh, 289 F.3d 968, 973–74 (7th Cir. 2002). Ramos does not wish to challenge his guilty pleas, and thus counsel appropriately omits discussion about the adequacy of the plea colloquy and the voluntariness of the pleas. See United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 671–72 (7th Cir. 2002).

Counsel first considers whether Ramos could argue that Congress did not authorize separate punishments for both a violation of § 924(c) and the underlying crime of violence or drug trafficking crime. Section 2113(d) enhances the maximum prison sentence if a dangerous weapon is used during the bank robbery. 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d). Section 924(c) mandates that any person who brandishes a firearm "during and in relation to any crime of violence . . . (including a crime of violence. . . that provides for an enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or device) . . . shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP