Opinion
Case No.2:10-CR-087
2013-10-21
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JUAN CARLOS RAMOS-VELAZQUEZ, Defendant.
JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY
OPINION & ORDER
This matter is before the Court on pro se Defendant Juan Carlos Ramos-Velazquez's ("Defendant" or "Ramos-Velazquez") Notice of Appeal and Informal Motion for Reduction of Sentence. (Doc. 26.) For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's Motion is DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND
In July 1997, Ramos-Velazquez, a Mexican citizen, was convicted of selling narcotics in Arizona and sentenced to four months in prison. After serving this sentence, Ramos-Velazquez was deported to Mexico. In April 1999, Ramos-Velazquez returned to the United States illegally and was convicted in Idaho for trafficking a controlled substance. Following the Idaho conviction, Ramos-Velazquez served four years in prison and was then deported to Mexico. In July 2008, Ramos-Velazquez again returned to the United States illegally and was convicted in Franklin County, Ohio for trafficking cocaine. Ramos-Velazquez was sentenced to a term of two years in prison for the Ohio conviction. While serving his Ohio sentence, the United States indicted Ramos-Velazquez for illegally re-entering the United States after having been removed as an aggravated felon, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a)(1), (a)(2) and (b)(2).
In April 2011, Ramos-Velazquez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry. A presentence report calculated Ramos-Velazquez's total offense level as 21 and his criminal history category as three, which resulted in an advisory sentencing guidelines range of 46 to 57 months of imprisonment. At his sentencing before this Court in October 2010, Ramos-Velazquez - represented by counsel and with the aid of an interpreter - requested a downward departure from applicable guidelines range based on the health and welfare of his family in Mexico, as well as the time served in Ohio for cocaine trafficking. This Court credited Ramos-Velazquez for six months served in federal custody, but chose not to credit him for time served in Ohio on the unrelated trafficking conviction. The Court declined to grant any additional downward departure from the applicable guidelines range. Accordingly, the Court sentenced Defendant to imprisonment for a term of 46 months.
In 2012, Ramos-Velazquez appealed his sentence to the Sixth Circuit. Specifically, Defendant argued that his sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable because this Court failed to recognize its authority to depart downwardly from the sentencing guidelines based on sentencing disparities with fast-track programs in other jurisdictions. See U.S. v. Ramos-Velazquez, No. 10-4282, at 2-3 (6th Cir. Feb. 9, 2012) (unreported). The Sixth Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence as reasonable because he failed raise the issue of fast-track program disparity at his sentencing. Id. at 4.
Defendant subsequently filed this "Motion for resentencing for Remand to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit" with the Sixth Circuit. The following week, Defendant filed the same Motion with this Court, (Doc. 26).
II. LAW AND ANALYSIS
Defendant's Motion apparently seeks to appeal the Sixth Circuit's decision in U.S. v. Ramos-Velazquez, No. 10-4282, at 2-3 (6th Cir. Feb. 9, 2012) (unreported), which affirmed the 46 month sentence issued by this Court. District courts lose jurisdiction over an action "once a party files a notice of appeal, and jurisdiction transfers to the appellate court." Lewis v. Alexander, 987 F.2d 392, 394 (6th Cir. 1993) (citing Cochran v. Birkel, 651 F.2d 1219, 1221 (6th Cir. 1981)). Accordingly, in light of his appeal to the Sixth Circuit, this Court lacks jurisdiction to review Defendant's sentence. This Court likewise lacks jurisdiction to review the decision of the Court of Appeals in this matter. Furthermore, to the extent Defendant's Motion asks this Court to consider a sentence reduction under fast-track program disparity principles, the Sixth Circuit has already decided this issue in this case and affirmed the reasonableness of the Defendant's sentence. See Ramos-Velazquez, No. 10-4282.
Defendant's Motion is, therefore, DENIED.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Defendant's Motion, (Doc. 26), is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________
Algenon L. Marbley
United States District Judge