U.S. v. Ramirez

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 72-month term of incarceration on unlawful possession of firearm charge, even though said sentence was 15 months over top of applicable guideline range. While defendant argued that Dist. Ct. procedurally erred by not fully addressing his argument that longer sentence was not needed because he, at age 42, was aging out of crime-related conduct, record showed that defendant’s counsel conceded that aging-out argument was not strong argument, and thus Dist. Ct. was not required to provide detailed discussion of issue. Moreover, defendant failed to provide any data to support such claim, and Dist. Ct. had no reason to think that defendant would have aged out of instant crime, even with imposition of instant 72-month sentence. Also, instant sentence was not substantively unreasonable, where instant offense involved defendant’s risky flight from arresting officer, and where defendant had persistent and violent criminal history.