United States v. Soto-Ramirez

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOSE SOTO-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 21-4553

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

November 15, 2022

UNPUBLISHED

Submitted: October 24, 2022

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones Senior District Judge. (2:20-cr-00012-JPJ-PMS-1)

ON BRIEF:

Juval O. Scott, Federal Public Defender, Charlottesville, Virginia Nancy C. Dickenson-Vicars, Assistant Federal Public Defender OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellant.

Christopher R. Kavanaugh, United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, Jennifer R. Bockhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM

Following a jury trial, Jose Soto-Ramirez was convicted of possession of a prohibited object by an inmate, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1791(a)(2), (d)(1)(B). Soto-Ramirez appeals his conviction, asserting that the district court plainly erred in giving a limiting jury instruction. We affirm.

At trial, the district court instructed the jury that it could not consider "[t]he fact that Mr. Soto-Ramirez was an inmate and thus had been previously convicted of a crime" as evidence that he was guilty of the charged offense. Soto-Ramirez contends that this instruction erroneously relieved the Government of its burden of proving every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. As Soto-Ramirez concedes, because he did not object to the jury instruction in the district court, our review is for plain error. See United States v. Gillespie, 27 F.4th 934 940 (4th Cir. 2022), cert. denied, No. 21-8089, 2022 WL 4653160 (U.S. Oct. 3, 2022).

"On plain-error review, the defendant rather than the Government bears the burden of proof." United States v. Said, 26 F.4th 653, 660 (4th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks omitted). To meet this burden, Soto-Ramirez "must show that an error (1) was made, (2) is plain, and (3) affects substantial rights." United States v. Miller, 41 F.4th 302, 310 (4th Cir. 2022) (cleaned up).

In order to convict Soto-Ramirez, the Government was required to prove that he was an inmate of a prison and that he possessed a prohibited object that was designed or intended to be used as a weapon. 18 U.S.C. § 1791(a)(2), (d)(1)(B). Soto-Ramirez does not dispute that the district court properly instructed the jury as to the elements of the offense. However, he argues that the limiting instruction improperly relieved the Government of its burden of proving the element that he was an inmate.

"The Constitution gives a criminal defendant the right to demand that a jury find him guilty of all the elements of the crime with which he is charged." United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 510 (1995); see United States v. Lindberg, 39 F.4th 151, 159 (4th Cir. 2022). Here, although the district court correctly instructed the jury that, in order to convict Soto-Ramirez of the § 1791 offense, it was required to find that he was an inmate, the limiting instruction created the potential for jury confusion by instructing the jury that it could not consider as evidence of his guilt "the fact that Mr. Soto-Ramirez was an inmate and thus had been previously convicted of a crime." Even if this was error that was plain, however, we conclude that Soto-Ramirez failed to establish that the error affected his substantial rights.

"For an error to prejudice a defendant sufficiently to affect substantial rights, it must have affected the outcome of the district court proceedings." Gillespie,...