USCA4 Appeal: 21-4254 Doc: 47 Filed: 12/29/2022 Pg: 1 of 5 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 21-4254 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. FERMIN GOMEZ-JIMENEZ, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:17-cr-00589-JKB-3) Submitted: October 5, 2022 Decided: December 29, 2022 Before WYNN and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ON BRIEF: Brent E. Newton, Gaithersburg, Maryland, for Appellant. Erek L. Barron, United States Attorney, Zachary B. Stendig, Assistant United States Attorney, John J. Truex Chung, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-4254 Doc: 47 Filed: 12/29/2022 Pg: 2 of 5 PER CURIAM: Fermin Gomez-Jimenez pled guilty to conspiracy to participate in a racketeering enterprise and using a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence. At sentencing, the district court imposed a total of 456 months’ imprisonment, along with a five-year term of supervised release, $4,700 in restitution, and a $200 special assessment. On appeal, Gomez-Jimenez argues that the court’s oral sentence and written judgment are inconsistent with respect to the imposition of $4,700 in restitution. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. I. In September 2019, pursuant to a written plea agreement, Gomez-Jimenez pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to participate in a racketeering enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) and one count of using a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). His plea agreement included a standard appeal waiver in which he waived, among other things, the right to “appeal whatever sentence . . . imposed (including any term of imprisonment, fine, term of supervised release, or order of restitution) for any reason.” J.A. 56. At the May 18, 2021, sentencing hearing, the district court sentenced Gomez- Jimenez to 456 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. It then incorporated the mandatory (or “statutory”) conditions of supervised release, as well as the standard conditions of supervised release as set out in the presentence report and the court’s standing order. It also pronounced two special conditions of supervised release relating to Gomez-Jimenez’s immigration status. The court then stated it would impose no fine and 2 USCA4 Appeal: 21-4254 Doc: 47 Filed: 12/29/2022 Pg: 3 of 5 that “[r]estitution is in order, [and] the government has asked for $4,700, jointly and severally with other defendants in the case.” J.A. 149. Prior to the end of the hearing, the district court briefly revisited the restitution issue, setting a payment plan whereby Gomez- Jimenez would “pay restitution in the amount of $50 per month upon his release from incarceration . . . and the commencement of his supervised release term.” J.A. 154–55. Neither Gomez-Jimenez nor his counsel objected to the restitution order or …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals